Report 
  
of 
  the 
  Task 
  Force 
  on 
  
Misogyny, 
  Sexism 
  and 
  Homophobia 
  
in 
  Dalhousie 
  University 
  
Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  

June 
  26, 
  2015 
  

 Members 
  of 
  the 
  Task 
  Force 
  
There 
  are 
  three 
  members 
  of 
  the 
  Task 
  Force. 
  Its 
  chair, 
  Constance 
  Backhouse 
  holds 
  the 
  
positions 
  of 
  Distinguished 
  University 
  Professor 
  and 
  University 
  Research 
  Chair 
  at 
  the 
  
Faculty 
  of 
  Law 
  University 
  of 
  Ottawa. 
  Donald 
  McRae 
  holds 
  the 
  Hyman 
  Soloway 
  Chair 
  in 
  
Business 
  and 
  Trade 
  Law 
  at 
  the 
  University 
  of 
  Ottawa. 
  Nitya 
  Iyer 
  is 
  a 
  former 
  law 
  professor 
  
and 
  a 
  Vancouver 
  lawyer.

 Contents 
  
Executive 
  Summary 
  ............................................................................................................................. 
  1 
  
Chapter 
  1. 
  Background 
  to 
  the 
  Task 
  Force 
  and 
  This 
  Report 
  ................................................................. 
  5 
  
Chapter 
  2. 
  What 
  Happened? 
  .............................................................................................................. 
  7 
  
(a) 
  A 
  private 
  Facebook 
  group 
  is 
  revealed 
  ........................................................................................ 
  7 
  
(b) 
  Events 
  escalate 
  .......................................................................................................................... 
  9 
  
(c) 
  DDS 
  2015 
  prepares 
  to 
  say 
  goodbye 
  to 
  Dalhousie 
  .................................................................... 
  21 
  
Chapter 
  3. 
  Perspectives 
  on 
  the 
  meaning 
  of 
  what 
  happened 
  ............................................................ 
  26 
  
(a) 
  Interpretations 
  ......................................................................................................................... 
  26 
  
(b) 
  The 
  breadth 
  and 
  depth 
  of 
  harm 
  .............................................................................................. 
  29 
  
Chapter 
  4. 
  Why 
  Did 
  This 
  Happen? 
  .................................................................................................... 
  31 
  
(a) 
  The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  ........................................................................................................... 
  31 
  
(b) 
  Dalhousie 
  University 
  ................................................................................................................ 
  39 
  
(c) 
  Social 
  media 
  ............................................................................................................................. 
  40 
  
(d) 
  Society 
  ..................................................................................................................................... 
  42 
  
Chapter 
  5. 
  Influences 
  on 
  Behaviour 
  and 
  Experience 
  ........................................................................ 
  45 
  
(a) 
  Race 
  ......................................................................................................................................... 
  45 
  
(b) 
  Homophobia 
  ............................................................................................................................ 
  46 
  
(c) 
  Perceptions 
  of 
  dentistry 
  ........................................................................................................... 
  47 
  
Chapter 
  6. 
  Review 
  of 
  How 
  the 
  University 
  Used 
  Policies 
  and 
  Procedures 
  in 
  Its 
  Response 
  ................ 
  48 
  
Chapter 
  7. 
  The 
  Way 
  Forward 
  ............................................................................................................ 
  65 
  
I. 
  The 
  dental 
  school 
  culture 
  ........................................................................................................... 
  66 
  
II. 
  The 
  University 
  administration 
  ................................................................................................... 
  70 
  
III. 
  The 
  wider 
  context: 
  the 
  University 
  community 
  and 
  society 
  generally 
  ...................................... 
  79 
  
Chapter 
  8. 
  Summary 
  of 
  Recommendations 
  ...................................................................................... 
  83 
  
Appendix 
  I. 
  Terms 
  of 
  Reference 
  and 
  Members 
  of 
  the 
  Task 
  Force 
  .................................................... 
  87 
  
Appendix 
  II. 
  Useful 
  Links/Related 
  Reports 
  ........................................................................................ 
  93 
  

 Executive 
  Summary 
  
In 
  December 
  2014, 
  it 
  came 
  to 
  light 
  that 
  a 
  significant 
  number 
  of 
  male 
  fourth-­‐year 
  students 
  in 
  
Dalhousie 
  University’s 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  had 
  posted 
  sexist, 
  misogynist, 
  and 
  homophobic 
  remarks 
  
and 
  images 
  on 
  Facebook. 
  Some 
  of 
  the 
  posts 
  focused 
  on 
  their 
  female 
  classmates, 
  using 
  derogatory, 
  
demeaning, 
  and 
  sexually 
  violent 
  terms. 
   
  
A 
  group 
  of 
  dental 
  students 
  had 
  formed 
  a 
  male-­‐only 
  Facebook 
  group 
  in 
  their 
  first 
  year 
  at 
  the 
  dental 
  
school. 
  It 
  remained 
  a 
  closed 
  group, 
  with 
  membership 
  by 
  invitation 
  only. 
  One 
  member 
  showed 
  a 
  
highly 
  disturbing 
  post 
  to 
  a 
  classmate 
  because 
  she 
  was 
  one 
  of 
  the 
  female 
  dental 
  students 
  
mentioned 
  in 
  it 
  by 
  name. 
  He 
  let 
  her 
  take 
  a 
  screenshot 
  of 
  the 
  post 
  on 
  his 
  computer. 
  
The 
  young 
  woman 
  contacted 
  University 
  authorities, 
  intending 
  to 
  lodge 
  a 
  complaint. 
  She 
  also 
  
showed 
  the 
  screenshot 
  to 
  other 
  women 
  named 
  in 
  the 
  post. 
  Meanwhile, 
  the 
  University 
  tried 
  to 
  
contain 
  the 
  crisis 
  within 
  its 
  walls 
  using 
  its 
  own 
  policies. 
   
  
Within 
  a 
  week, 
  someone 
  had 
  leaked 
  more 
  than 
  50 
  screenshots 
  of 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group 
  to 
  the 
  
press. 
  Shocking, 
  nauseating, 
  and 
  deeply 
  unsettling, 
  the 
  content 
  and 
  speculation 
  about 
  what 
  it 
  
meant 
  dominated 
  the 
  news 
  for 
  weeks. 
  And 
  there 
  were 
  other 
  troubling 
  revelations. 
  For 
  years, 
  
dental 
  students 
  had 
  been 
  adding 
  layers 
  of 
  sexist, 
  misogynistic, 
  homophobic 
  graffiti 
  to 
  the 
  wall 
  
behind 
  the 
  bar 
  in 
  “The 
  Cavity,” 
  a 
  dental 
  students’ 
  lounge. 
  Requests 
  to 
  have 
  it 
  painted 
  over 
  had 
  
been 
  brushed 
  aside. 
  Female 
  dental 
  students 
  had 
  complained 
  to 
  authorities 
  about 
  some 
  
professors’ 
  behaviour 
  in 
  class 
  and 
  were 
  never 
  told 
  what 
  action 
  the 
  Faculty 
  or 
  University 
  took, 
  if 
  
any. 
  
The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  and 
  the 
  University 
  came 
  under 
  heavy 
  fire 
  as 
  traumatized 
  students, 
  
worried 
  parents, 
  and 
  an 
  outraged 
  public 
  demanded 
  action, 
  demanded 
  names, 
  demanded 
  
expulsions 
  and 
  resignations, 
  and 
  above 
  all, 
  demanded 
  answers. 
  
Many 
  others 
  called 
  the 
  furore 
  a 
  tempest 
  in 
  a 
  teacup—the 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  were 
  just 
  locker-­‐room 
  
talk 
  that 
  meant 
  nothing. 
  Voices 
  were 
  raised 
  in 
  variations 
  on 
  the 
  “boys 
  will 
  be 
  boys” 
  theme. 
  But 
  it 
  
soon 
  became 
  clear 
  that 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts, 
  and 
  the 
  institutional 
  response 
  to 
  them, 
  did 
  real 
  and 
  
lasting 
  harm. 
   
  
Before 
  the 
  school 
  year 
  came 
  to 
  an 
  end, 
  13 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  had 
  been 
  suspended 
  for 
  two 
  months 
  
from 
  working 
  in 
  the 
  dental 
  clinic, 
  putting 
  their 
  ability 
  to 
  graduate 
  in 
  jeopardy. 
  Twelve 
  had 
  spent 
  
over 
  150 
  hours 
  in 
  an 
  array 
  of 
  sessions 
  with 
  facilitators, 
  faculty 
  members, 
  and 
  experts 
  as 
  part 
  of 
  a 
  
restorative 
  justice 
  process. 
  A 
  large 
  number 
  of 
  their 
  classmates, 
  both 
  female 
  and 
  male, 
  had 
  joined 
  
them. 
  They 
  preferred 
  to 
  give 
  the 
  12 
  a 
  chance 
  to 
  learn 
  from 
  their 
  actions 
  rather 
  than 
  see 
  angry 
  
men 
  leave 
  without 
  graduating. 
  In 
  the 
  end, 
  all 
  of 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  graduated. 
  But 
  with 
  
licensing 
  bodies 
  reviewing 
  their 
  applications 
  very 
  closely, 
  their 
  professional 
  future 
  remains 
  
uncertain. 
  

 
  

 The 
  President 
  of 
  Dalhousie 
  appointed 
  the 
  three 
  members 
  of 
  this 
  Task 
  Force 
  to 
  examine 
  these 
  
events 
  independently; 
  the 
  Senate 
  endorsed 
  the 
  appointment. 
  We 
  did 
  not 
  have 
  the 
  power 
  to 
  make 
  
findings 
  of 
  fact 
  in 
  a 
  legal 
  sense 
  or 
  to 
  reach 
  conclusions 
  of 
  law. 
   
  Our 
  task 
  was 
  to 
  inquire 
  into 
  specific 
  
equity 
  issues 
  inside 
  the 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry, 
  review 
  University 
  policies 
  and 
  processes 
  around 
  its 
  
response 
  to 
  the 
  crisis, 
  and 
  consider 
  the 
  broader 
  social 
  context 
  to 
  provide 
  insight 
  into 
  the 
  meaning 
  
of 
  these 
  events. 
  
Throughout 
  our 
  work, 
  our 
  objective 
  was 
  to 
  see 
  what 
  we 
  could 
  learn 
  that 
  could 
  help 
  efforts 
  to 
  
dismantle 
  discrimination 
  and 
  harassment 
  in 
  the 
  future. 
  We 
  knew 
  that 
  this 
  was 
  possible 
  because 
  
crises 
  usually 
  ignite 
  in 
  settings 
  that 
  are 
  on 
  the 
  cusp 
  of 
  change. 
  The 
  eruption 
  comes 
  from 
  the 
  
courage 
  and 
  energy 
  of 
  people 
  who 
  protest 
  because 
  they 
  think 
  they 
  might 
  actually 
  be 
  heard. 
  No 
  
institution 
  wants 
  to 
  find 
  itself 
  at 
  the 
  centre 
  of 
  the 
  storm, 
  but 
  storms 
  signal 
  the 
  potential 
  for 
  
change. 
  There 
  is 
  strength 
  on 
  the 
  ground, 
  and 
  those 
  in 
  charge 
  are 
  perceived 
  as 
  good 
  people 
  who 
  
can 
  and 
  might 
  do 
  something 
  positive. 
   
  
The 
  Task 
  Force 
  did 
  not 
  begin 
  with 
  a 
  blank 
  canvas. 
  We 
  knew 
  some 
  things 
  from 
  the 
  outset: 
  
§

Dalhousie 
  does 
  not 
  stand 
  in 
  isolation. 
  Universities, 
  and 
  everyone 
  associated 
  with 
  them, 
  
live 
  within 
  a 
  wider 
  culture 
  that 
  increasingly 
  glorifies 
  sexual 
  violence 
  and 
  exploitation. 
  Soon 
  
after 
  the 
  story 
  broke, 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  at 
  other 
  universities 
  quietly 
  disappeared. 
  Their 
  
faculties 
  heaved 
  sighs 
  of 
  relief 
  that 
  the 
  scandal 
  had 
  not 
  erupted 
  in 
  their 
  backyards. 
   
  

§

Incidents 
  of 
  sexism, 
  misogyny, 
  and 
  homophobia 
  do 
  real 
  and 
  lasting 
  harm, 
  in 
  this 
  case, 
  to 
  
a 
  wide-­‐ranging 
  and 
  diverse 
  group 
  of 
  people: 
  female 
  and 
  male 
  students; 
  Faculty 
  of 
  
Dentistry 
  administrators, 
  professors, 
  clinical 
  instructors, 
  staff, 
  and 
  clinic 
  patients; 
  
University 
  administrators; 
  the 
  larger 
  Dalhousie 
  community 
  and 
  Dalhousie 
  alumni; 
  dentists, 
  
the 
  profession’s 
  associations 
  and 
  regulatory 
  bodies; 
  and 
  the 
  broader 
  public. 
  

§

Equity 
  issues 
  raise 
  complex 
  problems 
  that 
  cannot 
  be 
  resolved 
  easily. 
  Like 
  other 
  
institutions, 
  Dalhousie 
  is 
  divided 
  on 
  equity 
  issues. 
  In 
  this 
  case, 
  people 
  disagreed 
  about 
  
what 
  happened, 
  why 
  it 
  happened, 
  and 
  what 
  it 
  meant. 
  They 
  will 
  probably 
  disagree 
  about 
  
which 
  strategies 
  would 
  promote 
  positive 
  change, 
  but 
  progress 
  needs 
  diverse 
  
perspectives—and 
  a 
  commitment 
  to 
  working 
  collaboratively 
  across 
  differences. 
  

§

There 
  are 
  no 
  obvious 
  right 
  answers, 
  but 
  there 
  are 
  some 
  wrong 
  ones. 
  Minimizing 
  what 
  
happened 
  would 
  be 
  wrong. 
  We 
  heard 
  of 
  many 
  incidents 
  of 
  misogyny, 
  racism, 
  and 
  
homophobia 
  in 
  Dentistry 
  and 
  throughout 
  the 
  campus. 
  This 
  was 
  not 
  an 
  isolated 
  incident 
  or 
  
a 
  case 
  of 
  some 
  “bad 
  apples.” 
  And 
  in 
  any 
  case, 
  it 
  is 
  an 
  illusion 
  to 
  think 
  that 
  ridding 
  the 
  
University 
  of 
  bad 
  apples 
  would 
  cleanse 
  it 
  of 
  inequity. 
  Being 
  defensive 
  when 
  challenged 
  on 
  
sexism, 
  heterosexism, 
  and 
  racism 
  is 
  also 
  unhelpful. 
  We 
  must 
  recognize 
  that 
  we 
  all 
  live 
  a 
  
sexist, 
  racist, 
  and 
  heterosexist 
  culture 
  to 
  lay 
  the 
  groundwork 
  for 
  change. 
  The 
  status 
  quo 
  is 
  
unacceptable. 
  

2 
  
 
  

 
  

 After 
  meeting 
  with 
  some 
  150 
  students, 
  faculty, 
  staff, 
  administrators, 
  and 
  members 
  of 
  the 
  broader 
  
University 
  and 
  public 
  community, 
  receiving 
  written 
  submissions, 
  and 
  analyzing 
  University 
  policies, 
  
five 
  main 
  themes 
  emerged: 
  
1. The 
  culture 
  within 
  the 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  permits 
  incidents 
  of 
  sexism, 
  misogyny, 
  
homophobia 
  and 
  racism. 
  People 
  described 
  those 
  incidents 
  as 
  anything 
  from 
  “isolated” 
  to 
  
“rampant,” 
  and 
  as 
  affecting 
  both 
  staff 
  and 
  students. 
  Given 
  the 
  number, 
  the 
  duration, 
  and 
  
the 
  range 
  of 
  people 
  who 
  told 
  us 
  about 
  them, 
  they 
  cannot 
  be 
  dismissed 
  as 
  isolated. 
  One 
  
alumnus 
  said 
  that 
  Dentistry 
  lived 
  in 
  a 
  “time 
  warp,” 
  oblivious 
  to 
  social 
  progress 
  that 
  has 
  
rendered 
  some 
  behaviour 
  unacceptable. 
  
2. There 
  is 
  distrust 
  and 
  suspicion 
  about 
  the 
  University’s 
  response 
  to 
  reports 
  of 
  
discrimination. 
  “Swept 
  under 
  the 
  rug” 
  was 
  a 
  phrase 
  we 
  heard 
  over 
  and 
  over 
  again. 
  The 
  
Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  has 
  no 
  formal 
  complaints 
  process, 
  and 
  most 
  people 
  seem 
  afraid 
  to 
  
complain 
  informally 
  for 
  fear 
  of 
  retaliation. 
  They 
  had 
  little 
  confidence 
  that 
  anything 
  would 
  
be 
  done 
  anyway. 
  Within 
  the 
  University, 
  racist 
  graffiti 
  are 
  simply 
  painted 
  over 
  and 
  most 
  
complaints 
  are 
  handled 
  confidentially. 
   
  
3. On 
  the 
  whole, 
  the 
  University’s 
  policies 
  and 
  processes 
  for 
  dealing 
  with 
  equity 
  issues 
  are 
  
as 
  good 
  as 
  or 
  better 
  than 
  other 
  Canadian 
  universities. 
  We 
  do 
  not 
  see 
  a 
  need 
  to 
  redraft 
  
them. 
  We 
  do 
  suggest 
  making 
  the 
  University 
  community 
  more 
  familiar 
  with 
  how 
  and 
  when 
  
to 
  use 
  them 
  and 
  what 
  the 
  options 
  are. 
  We 
  think 
  whistleblowers 
  and 
  others 
  who 
  lodge 
  
complaints 
  need 
  more 
  support 
  and 
  protection 
  from 
  retaliation. 
  We 
  make 
  some 
  
recommendations 
  on 
  how 
  the 
  University 
  might 
  handle 
  cases 
  like 
  the 
  Facebook 
  incident 
  in 
  
the 
  future, 
  including 
  acting 
  on 
  its 
  own 
  initiative 
  to 
  take 
  carriage 
  of 
  the 
  matter 
  and 
  
improving 
  some 
  aspects 
  of 
  the 
  restorative 
  justice 
  process. 
   
  
4. The 
  best 
  route 
  for 
  the 
  future 
  is 
  to 
  focus 
  on 
  systemic 
  change. 
  Recognizing 
  the 
  connections 
  
between 
  a 
  group 
  of 
  complaints 
  holds 
  more 
  promise 
  than 
  dealing 
  with 
  each 
  incident 
  in 
  
isolation. 
  There 
  are 
  tools 
  and 
  approaches 
  to 
  shift 
  the 
  focus 
  to 
  structural 
  change 
  that 
  can 
  
transform 
  the 
  culture. 
  
5. Education 
  and 
  research 
  is 
  the 
  key 
  to 
  significant 
  and 
  lasting 
  change. 
  As 
  a 
  respected 
  centre 
  
of 
  learning 
  and 
  research, 
  Dalhousie 
  is 
  particularly 
  well 
  suited 
  to 
  explore 
  the 
  problems, 
  
develop 
  innovative 
  world-­‐class 
  resources, 
  and 
  foster 
  teaching 
  and 
  activism 
  to 
  dismantle 
  
inequalities 
  of 
  all 
  kinds. 
  
In 
  this 
  Report, 
  we 
  make 
  recommendations 
  directed 
  to 
  the 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry, 
  the 
  University 
  
administration, 
  and 
  the 
  wider 
  context 
  of 
  the 
  University 
  community. 
  Neither 
  this 
  Report 
  nor 
  our 
  
recommendations 
  are 
  intended 
  to 
  assign 
  blame, 
  or 
  to 
  suggest 
  that 
  anyone 
  failed 
  to 
  act 
  in 
  good 
  
faith 
  or 
  did 
  not 
  act 
  in 
  what 
  they 
  believed 
  to 
  be 
  the 
  best 
  interests 
  of 
  the 
  University 
  and 
  the 
  
students 
  involved. 
  The 
  evidence 
  received 
  gave 
  us 
  no 
  cause 
  to 
  cast 
  aspersions 
  on 
  the 
  motives 
  or 
  
intentions 
  of 
  any 
  of 
  the 
  decision-­‐makers. 
  

3 
  
 
  

 
  

 The 
  University 
  and 
  Dentistry 
  administrators 
  had 
  to 
  deal 
  with 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group 
  events 
  while 
  
under 
  intense 
  public 
  scrutiny 
  and 
  pressure 
  for 
  immediate 
  response. 
  By 
  contrast, 
  we 
  had 
  the 
  
benefit 
  of 
  hindsight 
  and 
  reflection, 
  and 
  the 
  opportunity 
  to 
  hear 
  the 
  observations 
  of 
  students, 
  
faculty 
  members, 
  staff, 
  administrators 
  and 
  members 
  of 
  the 
  broader 
  public. 
  They 
  all 
  added 
  depth 
  
to 
  our 
  understanding. 
  One 
  of 
  the 
  most 
  positive 
  messages 
  we 
  took 
  away 
  from 
  our 
  communications 
  
with 
  them 
  is 
  the 
  virtually 
  unanimous 
  agreement 
  on 
  goals 
  and 
  objectives. 
   
  
Everyone 
  wants 
  a 
  safe 
  campus—a 
  non-­‐discriminatory 
  institution 
  that 
  is 
  inclusive 
  and 
  respectful 
  of 
  
a 
  diverse 
  community. 
  Many 
  people 
  told 
  us 
  that 
  they 
  would 
  like 
  to 
  see 
  Dalhousie 
  become 
  a 
  
recognized 
  leader, 
  positioned 
  at 
  the 
  forefront 
  of 
  equity 
  issues. 
  We 
  believe 
  that 
  it 
  is 
  entirely 
  
possible 
  to 
  achieve 
  that 
  vision. 
  We 
  were 
  left 
  with 
  an 
  impression 
  of 
  enormous 
  talent 
  and 
  capacity, 
  
a 
  surfeit 
  of 
  goodwill, 
  and 
  a 
  collective 
  desire 
  to 
  improve 
  equity 
  in 
  every 
  aspect 
  of 
  university 
  life. 
  
We 
  hope 
  that 
  this 
  Report 
  will 
  help 
  Dalhousie 
  move 
  toward 
  that 
  goal. 
  

4 
  
 
  

 
  

 Chapter 
  1. 
  Background 
  to 
  the 
  Task 
  Force 
  and 
  This 
  Report 
  
In 
  early 
  December 
  2014, 
  it 
  came 
  to 
  light 
  that 
  some 
  fourth-­‐year 
  students 
  at 
  Dalhousie 
  University’s 
  
Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  (Dentistry) 
  had 
  been 
  posting 
  misogynistic, 
  sexist, 
  and 
  homophobic 
  comments 
  
and 
  images 
  to 
  a 
  closed 
  Facebook 
  group. 
  In 
  January 
  2015, 
  Dalhousie’s 
  President 
  and 
  Senate 
  
approved 
  the 
  creation 
  of 
  an 
  external 
  Task 
  Force 
  to 
  investigate 
  what 
  happened 
  and 
  why, 
  
investigate 
  the 
  culture 
  within 
  Dentistry, 
  assess 
  what 
  can 
  be 
  learned, 
  and 
  make 
  recommendations 
  
for 
  how 
  Dalhousie 
  and 
  other 
  institutions 
  might 
  address 
  similar 
  issues 
  in 
  the 
  future. 
   
  
The 
  Task 
  Force 
  operated 
  entirely 
  independently 
  from 
  the 
  University, 
  but 
  we 
  had 
  administrative 
  
help 
  from 
  University 
  staff. 
  We 
  want 
  to 
  thank 
  Kim 
  Thomson 
  and 
  Courtney 
  Eisner 
  for 
  their 
  
unflagging 
  support 
  in 
  coordinating 
  our 
  work. 
   
  
The 
  terms 
  of 
  reference 
  asked 
  us 
  for 
  two 
  separate 
  reports; 
  one 
  with 
  recommendations 
  for 
  
Dentistry 
  and 
  the 
  other 
  with 
  recommendations 
  for 
  the 
  wider 
  University. 
  With 
  the 
  University’s 
  
consent, 
  we 
  have 
  combined 
  both 
  sets 
  of 
  recommendations 
  in 
  this 
  Report. 
  
This 
  is 
  not 
  a 
  report 
  on 
  a 
  formal 
  investigation. 
  The 
  Task 
  Force 
  did 
  not 
  conduct 
  hearings 
  and 
  had 
  no 
  
other 
  way 
  to 
  compel 
  people 
  to 
  speak 
  to 
  us. 
  We 
  did 
  not 
  have 
  the 
  power 
  to 
  gather 
  all 
  potentially 
  
relevant 
  information. 
  For 
  example, 
  we 
  only 
  saw 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  captured 
  in 
  a 
  series 
  of 
  
screenshots; 
  we 
  did 
  not 
  see 
  any 
  other 
  posts 
  to 
  that 
  Facebook 
  group. 
   
  
Over 
  the 
  course 
  of 
  three 
  months, 
  we 
  met 
  with 
  some 
  150 
  students, 
  faculty, 
  staff, 
  administrators, 
  
and 
  members 
  of 
  the 
  broader 
  University 
  and 
  public 
  community. 
  They 
  talked 
  to 
  us 
  about 
  the 
  
Facebook 
  posts, 
  and 
  about 
  the 
  culture, 
  practices, 
  and 
  policies 
  within 
  Dentistry 
  and 
  the 
  University. 
  
We 
  also 
  received 
  confidential 
  written 
  submissions. 
  
We 
  found 
  that 
  a 
  great 
  many 
  individuals 
  cared 
  deeply 
  about 
  resolving 
  the 
  problems 
  we 
  were 
  
examining. 
  We 
  benefitted 
  greatly 
  from 
  their 
  information 
  and 
  thoughtful 
  suggestions. 
  Early 
  on, 
  
however, 
  we 
  realized 
  that 
  many 
  people 
  who 
  had 
  important 
  things 
  to 
  say 
  were 
  worried 
  about 
  the 
  
repercussions 
  of 
  talking 
  to 
  us. 
  We 
  decided 
  to 
  communicate 
  with 
  people 
  in 
  confidence. 
  In 
  this 
  
Report, 
  we 
  do 
  not 
  attribute 
  anything 
  to 
  identifiable 
  individuals 
  unless 
  that 
  information 
  is 
  already 
  
public 
  or 
  unless 
  an 
  individual 
  specifically 
  authorized 
  us 
  to 
  do 
  so. 
   
  
Looked 
  at 
  objectively, 
  there 
  is 
  no 
  question 
  that 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  we 
  saw 
  were 
  sexist, 
  
misogynistic, 
  and 
  homophobic. 
  The 
  reactions 
  to 
  them 
  ranged 
  from 
  dismissive 
  to 
  harshly 
  
judgmental. 
  In 
  this 
  Report, 
  we 
  have 
  tried 
  to 
  show 
  the 
  wide 
  range 
  of 
  interpretations 
  of 
  what 
  
happened 
  and 
  why, 
  as 
  well 
  as 
  the 
  breadth 
  and 
  depth 
  of 
  the 
  harm 
  these 
  events 
  caused. 
  We 
  have 
  
sought 
  to 
  show 
  respect 
  for 
  all 
  views 
  held 
  and 
  compassion 
  for 
  all 
  harm 
  experienced. 
  We 
  have 
  told 
  
the 
  story 
  as 
  simply 
  and 
  directly 
  as 
  possible, 
  without 
  editorializing. 
  
The 
  events 
  we 
  describe 
  in 
  this 
  Report 
  sparked 
  heated 
  debate 
  and 
  fuelled 
  intense 
  public 
  interest. 
  
Dalhousie’s 
  response 
  drew 
  heavy 
  criticism 
  in 
  some 
  quarters. 
  The 
  University 
  asked 
  the 
  Task 
  Force 
  
to 
  make 
  recommendations 
  on 
  institutional 
  responses 
  to 
  situations 
  like 
  this, 
  but 
  we 
  have 
  also 
  tried 
  
to 
  shed 
  light 
  on 
  the 
  complexity 
  of 
  the 
  underlying 
  environment. 
  We 
  believe 
  that 
  understanding 
  
5 
  
 
  

 
  

 these 
  events 
  is 
  essential 
  if 
  there 
  is 
  to 
  be 
  progress 
  in 
  the 
  future. 
  However, 
  in 
  writing 
  this 
  report, 
  we 
  
do 
  not 
  purport 
  to 
  reach 
  definitive 
  conclusions 
  on 
  matters 
  over 
  which 
  there 
  is 
  controversy. 
  

6 
  
 
  

 
  

 Chapter 
  2. 
  What 
  Happened? 
  
(a) 
  A 
  private 
  Facebook 
  group 
  is 
  revealed 
  
A 
  poll 
  on 
  the 
  day 
  of 
  remembrance 
  for 
  the 
  Montreal 
  Massacre 
  
On 
  December 
  6th, 
  1989, 
  a 
  gunman 
  entered 
  L’École 
  Polytechnique 
  in 
  Montreal 
  and 
  murdered 
  14 
  
female 
  engineering 
  students. 
  His 
  goal 
  was 
  to 
  prevent 
  women 
  from 
  entering 
  a 
  male 
  profession. 
  The 
  
killer’s 
  suicide 
  note 
  blamed 
  feminists 
  for 
  ruining 
  his 
  life. 
  Women’s 
  organizations 
  across 
  Canada 
  
commemorate 
  the 
  date 
  every 
  year, 
  calling 
  for 
  national 
  action 
  to 
  eliminate 
  violence 
  against 
  
women. 
  
On 
  December 
  6th, 
  2014, 
  25 
  years 
  to 
  the 
  day 
  after 
  the 
  Montreal 
  Massacre, 
  a 
  fourth-­‐year 
  dentistry 
  
student 
  at 
  Dalhousie 
  posted 
  a 
  question 
  about 
  his 
  female 
  classmates, 
  in 
  the 
  form 
  of 
  a 
  poll, 
  on 
  an 
  
all-­‐male 
  Facebook 
  group 
  called 
  the 
  “Class 
  of 
  DDS 
  2015 
  Gentlemen”: 
  “Who 
  would 
  you 
  hate 
  fuck?” 
  
He 
  also 
  invited 
  members 
  to 
  vote 
  on 
  which 
  classmates 
  they 
  would 
  like 
  to 
  “sport 
  fuck.” 
  
To 
  suggest 
  that 
  the 
  Facebook 
  incident 
  is 
  on 
  an 
  order 
  of 
  atrocity 
  comparable 
  with 
  the 
  tragedy 
  in 
  
Montreal 
  would 
  insult 
  the 
  memories 
  of 
  the 
  women 
  who 
  died 
  in 
  1989. 
  It 
  would 
  also 
  be 
  grossly 
  
unfair 
  to 
  the 
  men 
  of 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group. 
  Yet 
  several 
  media 
  outlets, 
  along 
  with 
  many 
  people 
  who 
  
spoke 
  with 
  our 
  Task 
  Force, 
  drew 
  attention 
  to 
  an 
  undeniable 
  parallel: 
  On 
  December 
  6th, 
  25 
  years 
  
apart, 
  young 
  women 
  pursuing 
  careers 
  in 
  professions 
  once 
  reserved 
  for 
  men 
  became 
  targets. 
   
  
The 
  poll 
  proves 
  to 
  be 
  the 
  tip 
  of 
  the 
  iceberg 
  
Several 
  members 
  voted 
  in 
  the 
  Facebook 
  poll, 
  but 
  at 
  least 
  one 
  tried 
  to 
  put 
  a 
  stop 
  to 
  it. 
  Later 
  
dubbed 
  “the 
  Whistleblower,” 
  he 
  showed 
  the 
  post 
  to 
  a 
  female 
  classmate 
  who 
  was 
  mentioned 
  by 
  
name 
  in 
  the 
  “hate 
  fuck” 
  poll. 
  We 
  call 
  her 
  Student 
  A. 
  “The 
  Whistleblower“ 
  (or 
  Student 
  B) 
  let 
  
Student 
  A 
  use 
  his 
  laptop 
  to 
  take 
  a 
  screenshot 
  of 
  that 
  poll. 
  Later, 
  he 
  would 
  let 
  her 
  take 
  screenshots 
  
of 
  other 
  offensive 
  posts 
  going 
  back 
  four 
  years 
  to 
  the 
  fall 
  of 
  2011, 
  when 
  sixteen 
  “Gentlemen” 
  
created 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group 
  in 
  the 
  first 
  year 
  of 
  their 
  dental 
  studies.” 
  We 
  have 
  no 
  way 
  of 
  knowing 
  
whether 
  the 
  posts 
  she 
  did 
  not 
  capture 
  were 
  innocuous 
  or 
  disturbing 
  in 
  other 
  ways. 
  Here 
  are 
  some 
  
examples 
  of 
  captured 
  posts 
  and 
  comments. 
  
§

A 
  photo 
  of 
  a 
  bikini-­‐clad 
  woman 
  bears 
  the 
  caption 
  “Bang 
  until 
  stress 
  is 
  relieved 
  or 
  
unconscious 
  (girl).” 
  Comments 
  below 
  the 
  post 
  include 
  “Can 
  you 
  tell 
  me 
  what 
  this 
  
chloroform 
  smells 
  like?” 
  and 
  “Does 
  this 
  mask 
  smell 
  like 
  nitrous 
  oxide 
  to 
  you?” 
   
  

§

“Penis” 
  is 
  defined 
  as 
  “the 
  tool 
  used 
  to 
  wean 
  and 
  convert 
  lesbians 
  and 
  virgins 
  into 
  
useful, 
  productive 
  members 
  of 
  society.” 
  A 
  member 
  comments, 
  “and 
  by 
  productive 
  
I’m 
  assuming 
  you 
  mean 
  it 
  inspires 
  them 
  to 
  become 
  chefs, 
  housekeepers, 
  babysitters, 
  
etc.” 
   
  

§

One 
  member 
  describes 
  himself 
  as 
  an 
  “ass 
  man” 
  and 
  another 
  as 
  “a 
  boob 
  man.” 
   
  

§

Photos 
  of 
  fat 
  women 
  in 
  bathing 
  suits 
  draw 
  many 
  laughs. 
  

7 
  
 
  

 
  

 §

A 
  photo 
  of 
  a 
  young 
  woman 
  posed 
  with 
  legs 
  partially 
  raised 
  while 
  sitting 
  on 
  top 
  of 
  a 
  
“public 
  entrance” 
  sign, 
  receives 
  many 
  “Likes” 
  and 
  the 
  comment 
  that 
  “She’s 
  open 
  for 
  
business.” 
  

There 
  are 
  several 
  examples 
  of 
  dentistry-­‐related 
  comments 
  and 
  sexual 
  innuendo: 
  
§

Female 
  classmates 
  are 
  said 
  to 
  “casually 
  flirt 
  with 
  instructors 
  and 
  lure 
  them 
  to 
  their 
  
cubicle” 
  while 
  “talking 
  with 
  a 
  sexy 
  voice.” 
  A 
  comment 
  calling 
  them 
  “damn 
  honey 
  
traps” 
  attracts 
  20 
  Likes. 
  

§

The 
  caption 
  for 
  a 
  cropped 
  picture 
  of 
  one 
  man 
  behind 
  four 
  women 
  wearing 
  dental 
  lab 
  
coats 
  says 
  he 
  is 
  a 
  man 
  “beating 
  off” 
  on 
  his 
  classmates. 
   
  

§

Someone 
  says, 
  “Two 
  reasons 
  why 
  I 
  like 
  girls 
  in 
  Dentistry: 
  1 
  mm 
  looks 
  big 
  to 
  them 
  and 
  
it 
  normally 
  only 
  takes 
  less 
  than 
  10 
  mm 
  to 
  enter 
  a 
  canal!” 
   
  

§

Endodontics 
  inspires 
  comments 
  about 
  the 
  need 
  to 
  “scout 
  a 
  canal 
  first 
  before 
  
entering 
  it,” 
  to 
  ensure 
  that 
  it 
  is 
  “moist/wet 
  when 
  working 
  on 
  it,” 
  and 
  cautioning 
  that 
  
“entering 
  a 
  dry 
  canal 
  can 
  cause 
  your 
  plugger 
  to 
  break.” 
  A 
  female 
  classmate 
  is 
  
imagined 
  complaining 
  to 
  a 
  male 
  faculty 
  member 
  that 
  her 
  “canal” 
  is 
  “too 
  tight.” 
  The 
  
“blushing” 
  male 
  professor 
  explains, 
  “You 
  gotta 
  get 
  the 
  10 
  in 
  there 
  before 
  to 
  make 
  
room 
  for 
  the 
  15… 
  you 
  have 
  to 
  finger 
  a 
  girl 
  before 
  you 
  put 
  your 
  dick 
  in.” 
  

§

A 
  female 
  faculty 
  member 
  is 
  described 
  as 
  a 
  “crazy 
  bitch,” 
  a 
  male 
  faculty 
  member 
  as 
  
looking 
  “like 
  a 
  pornstar,” 
  and 
  another 
  as 
  “under 
  more 
  heat 
  for 
  sexual 
  harassment 
  
than 
  anyone 
  since 
  [a 
  previous 
  faculty 
  member] 
  and 
  gives 
  a 
  final 
  with 
  69 
  questions. 
  
What 
  a 
  boss.” 
   
  

Mixed 
  reactions 
  to 
  learning 
  that 
  female 
  classmates 
  have 
  seen 
  the 
  page 
   
  
The 
  screenshots 
  also 
  capture 
  some 
  posts 
  after 
  the 
  members 
  learned 
  that 
  some 
  of 
  their 
  female 
  
classmates 
  had 
  seen 
  their 
  sex 
  poll. 
  One 
  laments 
  that 
  “the 
  guys 
  group 
  has 
  always 
  been 
  a 
  place 
  for 
  
everyone 
  to 
  cut 
  loose.” 
  Another 
  adds, 
  “Lockeroom 
  (sic) 
  talk 
  if 
  you 
  will. 
  Should 
  stay 
  in 
  the 
  locker 
  
room.” 
  Someone 
  suggests 
  that 
  “from 
  this 
  day 
  forward” 
  the 
  group 
  should 
  “abbreviate 
  certain 
  
terms.” 
   
  
“Like 
  SP 
  for 
  sportfucking!!!” 
  suggests 
  someone 
  else. 
  
Most 
  do 
  not 
  seem 
  worried 
  about 
  repercussions, 
  and 
  they 
  are 
  angry 
  with 
  the 
  (unknown) 
  
whistleblower: 
  
Boys 
  what 
  are 
  they 
  going 
  to 
  do? 
  honestly. 
  Kick 
  every 
  guy 
  out 
  of 
  4th 
  year? 
  Tell 
  
us 
  you 
  guys 
  are 
  mean 
  for 
  saying 
  those 
  things? 
  I 
  think 
  the 
  bigger 
  issue 
  is 
  who 
  in 
  
the 
  fuck 
  is 
  showing 
  the 
  girls. 
  But 
  I 
  also 
  want 
  to 
  know 
  I 
  can 
  say 
  whoever 
  I 
  want 
  
to 
  HATEFUCK 
  and 
  know 
  some 
  guy 
  isn’t 
  going 
  to 
  go 
  running 
  and 
  tell 
  the 
  girls. 
  
Someone 
  adds, 
  “We 
  should 
  hang 
  the 
  leak 
  from 
  his 
  balls. 
  If 
  he 
  has 
  balls.” 
  
At 
  least 
  one 
  poster 
  does 
  seem 
  worried: 
  “RED 
  ALERT!!!!! 
  RED 
  FUCKING 
  ALERT!!!!! 
  We 
  have 
  to 
  get 
  
rid 
  of 
  the 
  evidence.” 
  But 
  another 
  says 
  it 
  is 
  “Not 
  like 
  its 
  (sic) 
  anythign 
  (sic) 
  serious 
  lol.” 
  A 
  few 
  
8 
  
 
  

 
  

 suggest 
  that 
  it 
  is 
  not 
  a 
  laughing 
  matter, 
  and 
  that 
  an 
  apology 
  might 
  be 
  in 
  order, 
  but 
  others 
  disagree: 
  
“fuck 
  an 
  appology 
  (sic).” 
   
  
Shortly 
  after 
  these 
  comments, 
  the 
  Facebook 
  page 
  came 
  down. 
  

(b) 
  Events 
  escalate 
  
Attempts 
  to 
  contain 
  the 
  crisis 
  with 
  internal 
  policies 
  
First 
  thing 
  Monday 
  morning 
  (December 
  8th), 
  Student 
  A 
  went 
  to 
  the 
  University’s 
  central 
  
administration 
  (or 
  upper 
  campus) 
  student 
  affairs 
  office. 
  She 
  showed 
  the 
  screenshot 
  of 
  the 
  “hate 
  
fuck” 
  poll 
  to 
  the 
  senior 
  administrator 
  in 
  charge 
  and 
  asked 
  that 
  a 
  formal 
  complaint 
  be 
  laid 
  under 
  
the 
  University’s 
  Code 
  of 
  Student 
  Conduct. 
  The 
  administrator 
  explained 
  that 
  the 
  campus 
  was 
  about 
  
to 
  shut 
  down 
  for 
  the 
  holidays, 
  but 
  that 
  she 
  would 
  look 
  into 
  it 
  and 
  get 
  back 
  to 
  Student 
  A. 
   
  
By 
  then, 
  Student 
  A 
  had 
  shown 
  the 
  poll 
  screenshot 
  to 
  some 
  female 
  classmates 
  who 
  had 
  been 
  
mentioned 
  in 
  the 
  post. 
  Later 
  that 
  morning, 
  they 
  met 
  with 
  a 
  female 
  Dentistry 
  administrator. 
  They 
  
voiced 
  their 
  concerns 
  about 
  broader 
  problems 
  within 
  Dentistry, 
  including 
  lack 
  of 
  professionalism 
  
and 
  the 
  culture 
  and 
  climate. 
   
  
The 
  same 
  day, 
  University 
  security 
  staff 
  identified 
  nine 
  men 
  and 
  five 
  women 
  who 
  figured 
  in 
  the 
  
“hate 
  fuck” 
  poll 
  screenshot. 
  The 
  University 
  assembled 
  a 
  student-­‐in-­‐crisis 
  team 
  to 
  determine 
  
whether 
  there 
  was 
  a 
  safety 
  risk. 
  The 
  team 
  concluded 
  that 
  there 
  was 
  not. 
  The 
  senior 
  administrator 
  
who 
  had 
  met 
  with 
  Student 
  A 
  that 
  morning 
  decided 
  that 
  there 
  was 
  no 
  basis 
  for 
  ordering 
  the 
  
interim 
  suspension 
  of 
  the 
  men 
  involved. 
  The 
  next 
  day 
  (December 
  9th), 
  the 
  administrator 
  told 
  four 
  
of 
  the 
  women 
  who 
  had 
  come 
  forward 
  that 
  the 
  Sexual 
  Harassment 
  Policy 
  was 
  the 
  appropriate 
  
complaint 
  mechanism. 
  She 
  advised 
  them 
  to 
  contact 
  the 
  University’s 
  Human 
  Rights, 
  Equity 
  and 
  
Harassment 
  Prevention 
  (HREHP) 
  office 
  to 
  explore 
  further 
  action. 
   
  
Upper 
  campus 
  wanted 
  to 
  handle 
  this 
  serious 
  matter 
  centrally, 
  but 
  asked 
  Dentistry 
  to 
  support 
  the 
  
female 
  students. 
  As 
  word 
  spread 
  and 
  more 
  female 
  students 
  came 
  forward, 
  Dentistry’s 
  
administrators 
  felt 
  increasingly 
  frustrated. 
  The 
  situation 
  seemed 
  to 
  be 
  spiralling 
  out 
  of 
  control, 
  
with 
  no 
  clear 
  response 
  from 
  upper 
  campus. 
  One 
  administrator 
  said, 
  “If 
  we 
  could 
  have 
  dealt 
  with 
  it 
  
inside 
  the 
  faculty, 
  got 
  ahead 
  of 
  it, 
  we 
  might 
  have 
  dealt 
  with 
  it 
  more 
  quickly.” 
  That 
  sentiment 
  
would 
  grow 
  over 
  the 
  next 
  months. 
  Some 
  within 
  Dentistry 
  wanted 
  to 
  demonstrate 
  decisive 
  action, 
  
but 
  upper 
  campus 
  insisted 
  that 
  they 
  wait 
  for 
  the 
  other 
  processes 
  to 
  unfold. 
  Senior 
  University 
  
officials 
  continued 
  to 
  believe 
  that 
  the 
  crisis 
  called 
  for 
  central 
  control. 
  
Based 
  on 
  the 
  poll 
  screenshot, 
  and 
  advised 
  that 
  interim 
  accommodations 
  and 
  support 
  had 
  been 
  
arranged 
  for 
  Student 
  A 
  through 
  Dentistry, 
  the 
  HREHP 
  Office 
  did 
  not 
  designate 
  the 
  incident 
  as 
  an 
  
emergency 
  or 
  as 
  a 
  high 
  risk. 
  Scheduling 
  conflicts 
  meant 
  that 
  Student 
  A 
  did 
  not 
  have 
  her 
  first 
  
session 
  at 
  the 
  HREHP 
  office 
  until 
  Friday 
  afternoon, 
  December 
  12th. 
   
  
Having 
  just 
  finished 
  her 
  fifth 
  exam 
  in 
  one 
  week, 
  Student 
  A 
  was 
  stressed 
  and 
  exhausted 
  as 
  she 
  sat 
  
through 
  the 
  two-­‐hour 
  meeting. 
  Two 
  HREHP 
  staff, 
  one 
  campus 
  security 
  officer, 
  and 
  a 
  female 
  dental 
  

9 
  
 
  

 
  

 school 
  administrator 
  were 
  there 
  to 
  explain 
  the 
  formal 
  and 
  informal 
  procedures 
  available 
  under 
  the 
  
Sexual 
  Harassment 
  Policy. 
  Student 
  A 
  would 
  later 
  recall 
  that 
  the 
  discussion 
  about 
  formal 
  
procedures 
  lasted 
  five 
  minutes, 
  but 
  the 
  discussion 
  about 
  the 
  informal 
  process 
  went 
  on 
  for 
  about 
  
an 
  hour, 
  with 
  staff 
  emphasizing 
  restorative 
  justice 
  (RJ) 
  among 
  the 
  informal 
  options. 
   
  
Student 
  A 
  told 
  the 
  meeting 
  that 
  she 
  was 
  not 
  interested 
  in 
  resolving 
  the 
  complaint 
  informally. 
  
Given 
  the 
  seriousness 
  of 
  the 
  incident, 
  the 
  ramifications 
  went 
  well 
  beyond 
  harm 
  to 
  one 
  individual. 
  
She 
  said 
  that 
  it 
  was 
  the 
  University’s 
  responsibility 
  to 
  take 
  charge. 
  She 
  requested 
  a 
  “no 
  contact” 
  
order 
  related 
  to 
  three 
  male 
  classmates, 
  and 
  the 
  campus 
  security 
  officer 
  agreed. 
  He 
  told 
  her 
  that 
  if 
  
there 
  was 
  evidence 
  other 
  than 
  the 
  poll 
  screenshot, 
  it 
  would 
  be 
  helpful 
  to 
  get 
  it. 
  She 
  did 
  not 
  want 
  
to 
  identify 
  her 
  source, 
  but 
  Student 
  B 
  agreed 
  to 
  let 
  her 
  access 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group 
  from 
  his 
  
computer 
  and 
  take 
  more 
  screenshots. 
  She 
  took 
  54 
  screenshots 
  and 
  turned 
  them 
  over 
  to 
  University 
  
authorities 
  that 
  evening. 
  According 
  to 
  Student 
  A, 
  “that’s 
  what 
  seemed 
  to 
  blow 
  up 
  this 
  whole 
  
thing.” 
   
  
Over 
  the 
  weekend, 
  Student 
  A’s 
  parents 
  contacted 
  the 
  President 
  of 
  the 
  University, 
  the 
  Dean 
  of 
  
Dentistry, 
  and 
  other 
  University 
  officials. 
  They 
  were 
  not 
  satisfied 
  with 
  Dentistry’s 
  offer 
  to 
  isolate 
  
her 
  from 
  her 
  classmates. 
  They 
  saw 
  this 
  as 
  penalizing 
  her 
  while 
  the 
  abusers 
  maintained 
  their 
  
normal 
  routine. 
  Instead, 
  the 
  abusers 
  should 
  be 
  the 
  ones 
  to 
  be 
  moved. 
   
  
Student 
  A 
  had 
  been 
  told 
  that 
  the 
  no-­‐contact 
  orders 
  would 
  not 
  be 
  served 
  on 
  her 
  classmates 
  until 
  
she 
  signed 
  them. 
  While 
  she 
  was 
  considering 
  what 
  to 
  do, 
  through 
  some 
  miscommunication, 
  the 
  
orders 
  were 
  issued 
  without 
  her 
  signature 
  or 
  knowledge. 
  This 
  upset 
  her 
  greatly. 
  Even 
  some 
  long-­‐
term 
  male 
  friends 
  who 
  had 
  not 
  received 
  a 
  no 
  contact 
  order 
  were 
  refusing 
  to 
  talk 
  to 
  her: 
  “Why 
  
would 
  anyone 
  want 
  to 
  talk 
  to 
  you? 
  You 
  sent 
  these 
  orders 
  to 
  people 
  to 
  not 
  talk 
  to 
  you.” 
  Student 
  A 
  
said, 
  “I 
  felt 
  like 
  things 
  kept 
  playing 
  out, 
  targeting 
  me, 
  separating 
  me 
  from 
  the 
  group, 
  which 
  just 
  
made 
  it 
  worse.” 
  
Soon, 
  all 
  of 
  her 
  classmates 
  had 
  figured 
  out 
  that 
  she 
  must 
  have 
  sent 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  to 
  the 
  
University. 
  She 
  was 
  writing 
  her 
  exams 
  in 
  a 
  separate 
  room, 
  isolated 
  from 
  the 
  class—a 
  dead 
  
giveaway. 
  Meanwhile, 
  her 
  parents 
  urged 
  the 
  University 
  to 
  follow 
  its 
  Sexual 
  Harassment 
  Policy. 
  
They 
  demanded 
  a 
  satisfactory 
  resolution 
  by 
  the 
  end 
  of 
  the 
  day 
  on 
  Monday 
  (December 
  15th). 
  
On 
  Monday 
  morning, 
  HREHP 
  staff 
  offered 
  to 
  meet 
  with 
  Student 
  A 
  to 
  discuss 
  options 
  for 
  moving 
  
forward. 
  Student 
  A 
  explained 
  that 
  she 
  was 
  in 
  the 
  middle 
  of 
  exams 
  and 
  under 
  severe 
  emotional 
  
stress, 
  worse 
  now 
  because 
  her 
  fellow 
  students 
  blamed 
  her 
  for 
  filing 
  a 
  complaint. 
  Alarmed 
  by 
  the 
  
growing 
  intensity 
  of 
  the 
  situation, 
  she 
  did 
  not 
  feel 
  comfortable 
  continuing 
  to 
  meet 
  with 
  the 
  HREHP 
  
office. 
  Some 
  people 
  within 
  the 
  University 
  seem 
  to 
  have 
  understood 
  this 
  to 
  mean 
  that 
  Student 
  A 
  
wanted 
  the 
  University 
  to 
  proceed 
  without 
  her 
  involvement. 
  This 
  was 
  not 
  Student 
  A’s 
  view. 
  
Although 
  she 
  had 
  been 
  told 
  that 
  she 
  had 
  to 
  proceed 
  under 
  the 
  Sexual 
  Harassment 
  Policy, 
  she 
  
continued 
  ask 
  the 
  University 
  to 
  launch 
  a 
  full 
  investigation 
  using 
  its 
  powers 
  under 
  the 
  Code 
  of 
  
Student 
  Conduct. 
  
That 
  day, 
  Student 
  A 
  retained 
  a 
  lawyer 
  to 
  advise 
  her 
  on 
  further 
  dealings 
  with 
  the 
  University. 
   
  

 
  

10 
    
  

 The 
  media 
  storm 
  sparks 
  both 
  fury 
  and 
  backlash 
  
For 
  a 
  whole 
  week 
  after 
  Student 
  A 
  first 
  went 
  to 
  the 
  upper 
  campus 
  with 
  the 
  poll 
  screenshot, 
  the 
  
situation 
  was 
  contained 
  within 
  Dalhousie’s 
  walls. 
  That 
  was 
  about 
  to 
  change. 
  
At 
  noon 
  on 
  December 
  15th, 
  CBC 
  reported 
  that 
  it 
  had 
  received 
  45 
  pages 
  of 
  screenshots 
  from 
  an 
  
unidentified 
  source. 
  The 
  content 
  was 
  “sexually 
  explicit” 
  and 
  “disturbing” 
  and 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group 
  
was 
  called 
  “misogynistic.” 
  Who 
  leaked 
  the 
  screenshots? 
  Student 
  A 
  was 
  widely 
  suspected. 
  She 
  
strenuously 
  denied 
  it 
  then, 
  and 
  continues 
  to 
  do 
  so, 
  but 
  she 
  was 
  even 
  more 
  frightened. 
  She 
  feared 
  
she 
  would 
  be 
  blamed 
  for 
  disrupting 
  the 
  whole 
  school. 
   
  
Two 
  days 
  later 
  (December 
  17th), 
  CBC 
  aired 
  a 
  related 
  story. 
  In 
  the 
  spring, 
  a 
  Dalhousie 
  dentistry 
  
professor 
  showed 
  his 
  students 
  a 
  video 
  featuring 
  scantily 
  clad 
  women 
  to 
  “wake 
  up” 
  the 
  early 
  
morning 
  class. 
  The 
  video 
  was 
  based 
  on 
  an 
  Air 
  New 
  Zealand 
  safety 
  clip 
  featuring 
  Sports 
  Illustrated 
  
swimsuit 
  models. 
  Two 
  unnamed 
  fourth-­‐year 
  female 
  dental 
  students 
  had 
  complained 
  to 
  the 
  dean 
  
of 
  dentistry. 
  The 
  professor 
  was 
  asked 
  to 
  email 
  an 
  apology 
  to 
  all 
  members 
  of 
  the 
  class, 
  and 
  he 
  had 
  
done 
  so. 
   
  
The 
  media 
  storm 
  put 
  the 
  dental 
  students 
  under 
  the 
  national 
  microscope. 
  Reporters 
  chased 
  both 
  
female 
  and 
  male 
  students, 
  as 
  well 
  as 
  some 
  of 
  their 
  families 
  and 
  neighbours, 
  to 
  ask 
  for 
  comments. 
  
They 
  followed 
  them 
  from 
  school 
  to 
  their 
  homes 
  and 
  workplaces. 
  Students 
  were 
  harassed 
  on 
  social 
  
media. 
  Day 
  after 
  day, 
  the 
  scandal 
  dominated 
  the 
  front 
  pages 
  of 
  newspapers, 
  and 
  was 
  the 
  lead 
  
story 
  on 
  radio, 
  TV, 
  and 
  internet 
  news 
  across 
  the 
  country. 
  An 
  online 
  petition 
  to 
  expel 
  the 
  students 
  
picked 
  up 
  over 
  a 
  thousand 
  signatures 
  in 
  an 
  afternoon, 
  forty 
  thousand 
  within 
  a 
  week, 
  and 
  fifty 
  
thousand 
  by 
  mid-­‐January. 
  A 
  #dalhateswomen 
  Twitter 
  campaign 
  amassed 
  more 
  than 
  60,000 
  
tweets. 
   
  
The 
  Chronicle 
  Herald 
  reported 
  that 
  fear 
  of 
  sitting 
  in 
  a 
  classroom 
  with 
  men 
  who 
  threaten 
  to 
  drug 
  
and 
  rape 
  women 
  was 
  spreading 
  like 
  a 
  virus 
  across 
  the 
  Dalhousie 
  campus. 
  Some 
  began 
  to 
  question 
  
whether 
  parents 
  should 
  send 
  their 
  daughters 
  to 
  Dalhousie. 
  
It 
  was, 
  as 
  one 
  observer 
  said, 
  “one 
  of 
  if 
  not 
  the 
  most 
  far 
  reaching 
  scandals 
  in 
  Dalhousie 
  University’s 
  
200 
  year 
  history.” 
  Dalhousie’s 
  communications 
  department 
  was 
  receiving 
  40 
  media 
  requests 
  a 
  
day, 
  and 
  the 
  report 
  count 
  would 
  soon 
  top 
  3,000. 
  As 
  one 
  reporter 
  said, 
   
  
[This] 
  scandal 
  has 
  captured 
  public 
  attention 
  in 
  a 
  way 
  rarely 
  seen. 
  This 
  is 
  a 
  story 
  
with 
  staying 
  power. 
  We’re 
  a 
  month 
  into 
  it…and 
  still 
  every 
  day 
  brings 
  fresh 
  
news. 
  Website 
  comments 
  and 
  letters 
  to 
  the 
  editor 
  abound. 
  It’s 
  the 
  talk 
  of 
  the 
  
province 
  and 
  indeed 
  the 
  country. 
  
A 
  crowd 
  of 
  200 
  rallied 
  in 
  front 
  of 
  the 
  dentistry 
  building 
  waving 
  signs 
  with 
  
“#DalhousieHatesWomen,” 
  “Expel 
  Rape 
  Culture,” 
  and 
  “We 
  Want 
  Names.” 
  
Three 
  hundred 
  members 
  of 
  the 
  Dalhousie 
  community, 
  including 
  people 
  employed 
  at 
  all 
  12 
  
faculties, 
  signed 
  a 
  Statement 
  Against 
  Misogyny 
  and 
  Gendered 
  Violence. 
  Three 
  parents 
  of 
  women 
  

 
  

11 
    
  

 in 
  the 
  dental 
  class 
  wrote 
  to 
  the 
  authors 
  supporting 
  the 
  statement 
  and 
  expressing 
  concern 
  about 
  
harm 
  to 
  their 
  daughters. 
  By 
  December 
  28th, 
  over 
  45,000 
  people 
  had 
  supported 
  a 
  petition 
  
demanding 
  a 
  transparent 
  and 
  independent 
  investigation. 
  The 
  Nova 
  Scotia 
  government 
  declared 
  
that 
  it 
  was 
  “closely 
  monitoring 
  the 
  situation.” 
   
  
By 
  this 
  point, 
  the 
  University 
  had 
  identified 
  13 
  male 
  students 
  as 
  active 
  in 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group 
  at 
  the 
  
time 
  the 
  screenshots 
  of 
  the 
  offending 
  posts 
  were 
  taken. 
  Provincial 
  dentistry 
  licensing 
  bodies 
  in 
  
Ontario 
  and 
  Alberta 
  demanded 
  the 
  names 
  of 
  the 
  13, 
  calling 
  their 
  behaviour 
  incompatible 
  with 
  
professional 
  accreditation. 
  The 
  University 
  refused 
  to 
  supply 
  them, 
  saying 
  that 
  this 
  would 
  be 
  an 
  
unlawful 
  violation 
  of 
  student 
  privacy. 
  Dentistry 
  regulatory 
  bodies 
  in 
  Nova 
  Scotia 
  and 
  British 
  
Columbia 
  announced 
  that 
  male 
  students 
  from 
  the 
  Dalhousie 
  2015 
  class 
  would 
  be 
  “scrutinized 
  for 
  
good 
  character.” 
   
  
In 
  hundreds 
  of 
  social 
  media 
  posts, 
  people 
  vowed 
  to 
  boycott 
  all 
  male 
  dentists 
  from 
  the 
  2015 
  
Dalhousie 
  class 
  unless 
  the 
  names 
  of 
  the 
  13 
  were 
  released. 
  The 
  internet 
  group 
  Anonymous 
  
threatened 
  to 
  expose 
  their 
  names, 
  as 
  well 
  as 
  the 
  names 
  of 
  Dalhousie 
  employees 
  who 
  failed 
  to 
  act 
  
on 
  the 
  complaints. 
  Instead, 
  however, 
  Anonymous 
  sent 
  the 
  media 
  the 
  email 
  addresses 
  of 
  every 
  
fourth-­‐year 
  male 
  dental 
  student 
  at 
  Dalhousie. 
  “Our 
  main 
  goal,” 
  an 
  Anonymous 
  representative 
  told 
  
the 
  press, 
  “is 
  to 
  expose 
  Dal’s 
  systemic 
  suppression 
  of 
  complaints.” 
  
A 
  Dalhousie-­‐trained 
  doctor 
  in 
  Ottawa 
  was 
  reported 
  to 
  be 
  shocked 
  to 
  hear 
  his 
  alma 
  mater 
  casually 
  
referred 
  to 
  as 
  “the 
  rape 
  school.” 
  Some 
  dental 
  school 
  alumni 
  removed 
  their 
  Dalhousie 
  diplomas 
  
from 
  their 
  office 
  walls 
  and 
  said 
  they 
  would 
  cut 
  ties 
  with 
  the 
  University. 
  Some 
  threatened 
  to 
  
withdraw 
  donor 
  funding. 
   
  
Meanwhile, 
  there 
  was 
  backlash 
  against 
  all 
  of 
  this 
  fury. 
  Some 
  critics 
  called 
  the 
  situation 
  a 
  tempest 
  
in 
  a 
  teapot. 
  They 
  cautioned 
  the 
  University 
  against 
  expelling 
  students 
  for 
  free 
  speech 
  and 
  argued 
  
that 
  low-­‐brow 
  humour 
  did 
  not 
  warrant 
  ruining 
  the 
  lives 
  of 
  men 
  who 
  had 
  worked 
  hard 
  and 
  spent 
  
thousands 
  of 
  dollars 
  on 
  their 
  education. 
  Some 
  believed 
  that 
  the 
  dental 
  students’ 
  belief 
  that 
  their 
  
Facebook 
  page 
  was 
  private 
  was 
  a 
  mitigating 
  factor. 
  Others 
  insisted 
  that 
  the 
  content 
  of 
  the 
  posts 
  
was 
  no 
  worse 
  than 
  the 
  content 
  found 
  on 
  general 
  internet 
  sites. 
  The 
  13 
  students 
  had 
  committed 
  no 
  
crime 
  other 
  than 
  stupidity 
  and 
  thoughtlessness, 
  many 
  said. 
  The 
  old 
  “boys 
  will 
  be 
  boys” 
  refrain 
  was 
  
often 
  repeated. 
  One 
  individual 
  even 
  accused 
  Dalhousie 
  of 
  “self-­‐justified 
  misandry 
  [hatred 
  of 
  men] 
  
in 
  the 
  name 
  of 
  fighting 
  misogyny.” 
   
  
A 
  40-­‐minute 
  video, 
  “Hallowed 
  Halls, 
  Dalhousie 
  University,” 
  appeared 
  on 
  YouTube. 
  The 
  male 
  
presenter 
  asserted 
  that 
  “dumb 
  jokes” 
  should 
  not 
  have 
  launched 
  a 
  “Dalhousie 
  shitstorm.” 
  He 
  
likened 
  the 
  protests 
  to 
  urging 
  women, 
  if 
  their 
  dentist 
  made 
  a 
  joke, 
  to 
  call 
  the 
  police 
  because 
  he 
  
was 
  a 
  rapist. 
  The 
  video 
  received 
  close 
  to 
  5,000 
  Likes. 
  
A 
  male 
  dental 
  student 
  described 
  the 
  atmosphere 
  around 
  the 
  school 
  as 
  “absolutely 
  a 
  circus” 
  where 
  
“certain 
  people 
  are 
  offended 
  about 
  everything 
  that 
  is 
  said.” 
  Letters 
  to 
  the 
  editor 
  of 
  the 
  Chronicle 
  
Herald 
  compared 
  calls 
  to 
  expel 
  the 
  male 
  students 
  with 
  a 
  “witch 
  hunt 
  from 
  the 
  Middle 
  Ages” 
  or 
  “a 
  

 
  

12 
    
  

 lynch 
  mob.” 
  One 
  said 
  that 
  “ugly 
  calls 
  for 
  the 
  heads 
  of 
  the 
  13 
  students” 
  were 
  “reminiscent 
  of 
  the 
  
French 
  Revolution.” 
  
A 
  path 
  seems 
  chosen, 
  but 
  there 
  is 
  more 
  anxiety 
  to 
  follow 
  
In 
  a 
  press 
  release 
  on 
  the 
  day 
  the 
  story 
  broke, 
  Dalhousie’s 
  President 
  asked 
  for 
  48 
  hours 
  to 
  consider 
  
the 
  “full 
  range 
  of 
  options 
  available 
  to 
  us 
  to 
  address 
  these 
  serious 
  allegations.” 
  For 
  the 
  next 
  two 
  
days, 
  he 
  met 
  with 
  colleagues 
  and 
  advisers 
  to 
  explore 
  the 
  possible 
  University 
  responses. 
  He 
  heard 
  
many 
  conflicting 
  perspectives. 
  He 
  spoke 
  with 
  some 
  of 
  the 
  women 
  dental 
  students 
  who 
  had 
  been 
  
named 
  in 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts. 
  It 
  would 
  eventually 
  emerge 
  that 
  10 
  female 
  students 
  were 
  named 
  in 
  
the 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  (nine 
  from 
  fourth 
  year 
  and 
  one 
  from 
  third 
  year). 
  He 
  wanted 
  to 
  meet 
  with 
  all 
  of 
  
them, 
  but 
  the 
  students’ 
  holiday 
  travel 
  schedules 
  and 
  other 
  pressures 
  of 
  time 
  meant 
  that 
  he 
  could 
  
only 
  meet 
  with 
  some. 
  
On 
  December 
  16th, 
  HREHP 
  staff 
  met 
  with 
  four 
  of 
  the 
  female 
  dentistry 
  students 
  named 
  in 
  the 
  
Facebook 
  posts 
  (Student 
  A 
  was 
  not 
  one 
  of 
  them). 
  They 
  outlined 
  the 
  various 
  formal 
  and 
  informal 
  
complaint 
  procedures 
  they 
  had 
  described 
  to 
  Student 
  A, 
  including 
  RJ. 
  The 
  University 
  concluded 
  
from 
  this 
  meeting 
  that 
  these 
  students 
  wanted 
  to 
  pursue 
  an 
  informal 
  complaint 
  under 
  the 
  Sexual 
  
Harassment 
  Policy 
  and 
  preferred 
  an 
  RJ 
  process. 
   
  
On 
  the 
  same 
  day, 
  HREHP 
  staff 
  met 
  with 
  12 
  of 
  the 
  13 
  men 
  the 
  University 
  had 
  identified 
  as 
  active 
  in 
  
the 
  Facebook 
  group 
  at 
  the 
  time 
  of 
  the 
  offending 
  posts. 
  The 
  men 
  also 
  agreed 
  to 
  an 
  RJ 
  process. 
  
HREHP 
  staff 
  met 
  separately 
  with 
  the 
  13th 
  student, 
  “the 
  Whistleblower,” 
  Student 
  B. 
  He 
  also 
  agreed 
  
to 
  the 
  RJ 
  process 
  based 
  on 
  what 
  he 
  knew 
  about 
  it 
  at 
  the 
  time. 
  In 
  an 
  email 
  from 
  an 
  administrator, 
  
the 
  entire 
  fourth-­‐year 
  dentistry 
  class 
  was 
  invited 
  to 
  meet 
  to 
  discuss 
  the 
  situation 
  the 
  same 
  day. 
  
Neither 
  Student 
  A 
  nor 
  Student 
  B 
  attended. 
  
The 
  following 
  evening 
  (December 
  17th), 
  Dalhousie’s 
  President 
  announced 
  that 
  “many” 
  of 
  the 
  
women 
  had 
  come 
  forward 
  and 
  “a 
  number” 
  had 
  selected 
  the 
  restorative 
  justice 
  route 
  under 
  the 
  
University’s 
  Sexual 
  Harassment 
  Policy. 
  He 
  said 
  that 
  this 
  was 
  already 
  under 
  way. 
  He 
  left 
  the 
  door 
  
open 
  for 
  women 
  to 
  lodge 
  a 
  formal 
  complaint, 
  and 
  said 
  that 
  a 
  formal 
  complaint 
  process 
  that 
  
included 
  “appropriate 
  disciplinary 
  action” 
  could 
  also 
  begin 
  if 
  the 
  RJ 
  process 
  failed. 
  To 
  clarify, 
  he 
  
stated 
  that 
  “The 
  restorative 
  justice 
  process 
  at 
  Dalhousie 
  does 
  not 
  preclude 
  future 
  action 
  on 
  the 
  
part 
  of 
  the 
  University, 
  nor 
  is 
  this 
  process 
  a 
  straitjacket 
  or 
  a 
  one-­‐way 
  street. 
  A 
  wide 
  range 
  of 
  
disciplinary 
  action 
  is 
  available 
  to 
  us 
  if 
  the 
  informal 
  process 
  breaks 
  down 
  for 
  any 
  reason.” 
   
  
Asked 
  by 
  the 
  press 
  about 
  why 
  he 
  was 
  not 
  starting 
  an 
  investigation 
  in 
  tandem 
  with 
  the 
  RJ 
  process, 
  
the 
  President 
  said 
  that 
  he 
  would 
  not 
  launch 
  “a 
  parallel 
  process” 
  against 
  the 
  wishes 
  of 
  the 
  female 
  
students 
  who 
  wanted 
  RJ. 
  The 
  RJ 
  facilitators 
  would 
  later 
  assert 
  that 
  it 
  was 
  anticipated 
  that 
  a 
  wider 
  
investigation 
  would 
  proceed 
  within 
  the 
  RJ 
  process 
  itself. 
  This 
  was 
  not 
  apparent 
  to 
  the 
  many 
  
observers 
  who 
  continued 
  to 
  call 
  for 
  a 
  full 
  investigation. 
  
On 
  December 
  18th, 
  Student 
  B 
  circulated 
  a 
  personal 
  apology 
  to 
  the 
  whole 
  class 
  and 
  to 
  the 
  
President. 
  He 
  said 
  that 
  he 
  had 
  not 
  had 
  “a 
  direct 
  involvement 
  in 
  the 
  hurtful 
  comments 
  brought 
  
forth,” 
  but 
  regretted 
  having 
  been 
  a 
  member 
  of 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group. 
  Depicting 
  himself 
  as 
  a 
  

 
  

13 
    
  

 bystander, 
  he 
  added 
  that 
  it 
  was 
  “something 
  I 
  am 
  not 
  proud 
  of 
  and 
  will 
  regret 
  for 
  the 
  rest 
  of 
  my 
  
life.” 
  His 
  letter 
  appeared 
  in 
  the 
  press 
  on 
  December 
  22nd. 
  
Meanwhile, 
  the 
  anxiety 
  level 
  inside 
  the 
  dental 
  school 
  continued 
  to 
  escalate. 
  An 
  administrator 
  said 
  
that 
  “there 
  was 
  palpable 
  stress. 
  It 
  just 
  seemed 
  frantic. 
  It’s 
  hard 
  to 
  describe 
  but 
  you 
  could 
  just 
  feel 
  
the 
  tension 
  and 
  paranoia.” 
  On 
  December 
  15th, 
  the 
  University 
  postponed 
  the 
  remaining 
  fourth-­‐year 
  
exams 
  until 
  January. 
  Some 
  students 
  may 
  have 
  been 
  relieved, 
  but 
  others 
  were 
  furious 
  at 
  the 
  
disruption 
  of 
  their 
  study 
  schedule. 
  On 
  December 
  22nd, 
  the 
  University 
  announced 
  that 
  dental 
  
classes, 
  and 
  the 
  public 
  dental 
  clinic 
  (the 
  Clinic) 
  where 
  all 
  third-­‐year 
  and 
  fourth-­‐year 
  students 
  
practised, 
  would 
  shut 
  down 
  until 
  January 
  12th. 
   
  
Returning 
  from 
  the 
  holidays 
  to 
  another 
  storm 
  
On 
  January 
  5th, 
  the 
  day 
  the 
  University 
  reopened 
  after 
  the 
  holiday 
  break, 
  the 
  President 
  announced 
  
that 
  the 
  clinic 
  privileges 
  of 
  all 
  13 
  Facebook 
  group 
  posters 
  had 
  been 
  suspended 
  as 
  of 
  December 
  
22nd. 
  Since 
  the 
  Clinic 
  accounted 
  for 
  the 
  majority 
  of 
  their 
  instruction 
  in 
  fourth 
  year, 
  this 
  would 
  halt 
  
their 
  academic 
  progress. 
  The 
  suspension 
  was 
  based 
  on 
  a 
  ruling 
  of 
  Dentistry’s 
  Assistant 
  Dean 
  Clinics 
  
and 
  Building 
  Services 
  (the 
  Clinic 
  Assistant 
  Dean) 
  and 
  carried 
  out 
  under 
  the 
  Clinical 
  Policy 
  Manual. 
  
The 
  reasons 
  for 
  the 
  suspension 
  were 
  “unprofessionalism,” 
  “concerns 
  for 
  patient 
  safety,” 
  and 
  the 
  
“safety 
  of 
  those 
  working 
  in 
  the 
  Clinic.” 
  Dentistry’s 
  Academic 
  Standards 
  Class 
  Committee 
  (ASCC) 
  
confirmed 
  the 
  interim 
  suspension 
  the 
  next 
  day. 
  The 
  ASCC 
  said 
  it 
  would 
  consider 
  whether 
  the 
  13 
  
students 
  had 
  violated 
  their 
  “professionalism 
  requirements,” 
  assessing 
  if 
  and 
  when 
  the 
  suspensions 
  
could 
  be 
  lifted, 
  and 
  deciding 
  “to 
  what 
  extent 
  remediation 
  is 
  possible.” 
  
On 
  January 
  9th, 
  the 
  President 
  announced 
  that 
  the 
  matter 
  was 
  now 
  before 
  the 
  ASCC. 
  He 
  also 
  said 
  
that 
  that 
  the 
  thirteen 
  would 
  no 
  longer 
  be 
  permitted 
  to 
  sit 
  alongside 
  their 
  fellow 
  students 
  in 
  classes 
  
but 
  could 
  attend 
  by 
  electronic 
  means. 
  He 
  summed 
  up 
  the 
  situation 
  at 
  a 
  press 
  conference: 
   
  
This 
  past 
  month 
  has 
  been 
  especially 
  challenging 
  for 
  our 
  university 
  and 
  our 
  
community. 
  All 
  of 
  us 
  continue 
  to 
  be 
  shaken 
  by 
  the 
  misogynistic 
  and 
  completely 
  
unacceptable 
  comments 
  made 
  by 
  male 
  members 
  of 
  our 
  fourth-­‐year 
  Dentistry 
  
class. 
  … 
  From 
  the 
  outset 
  we 
  stated 
  that 
  this 
  behaviour 
  is 
  completely 
  
unacceptable 
  and 
  there 
  must 
  be 
  consequences. 
  The 
  consequences 
  must 
  be 
  
based 
  on 
  a 
  just 
  process 
  that 
  complies 
  with 
  the 
  law, 
  university 
  policy 
  and 
  the 
  
rights 
  of 
  those 
  involved. 
  We 
  also 
  stated 
  the 
  need 
  to 
  look 
  at 
  issues 
  of 
  sexism 
  and 
  
misogyny 
  on 
  campus 
  more 
  deeply. 
  We 
  won’t 
  rush 
  to 
  judgment 
  nor 
  will 
  we 
  
sweep 
  this 
  under 
  the 
  rug. 
  
The 
  decision 
  to 
  give 
  jurisdiction 
  over 
  the 
  suspensions 
  to 
  the 
  ASCC, 
  a 
  body 
  internal 
  to 
  Dentistry, 
  
provoked 
  an 
  immediate 
  outcry. 
  Who 
  were 
  the 
  members 
  of 
  the 
  ASCC? 
  Did 
  the 
  membership 
  include 
  
the 
  professors 
  mentioned 
  in 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts? 
   
  
Regarding 
  the 
  delay 
  in 
  announcing 
  the 
  suspensions, 
  the 
  University 
  explained 
  that 
  some 
  of 
  the 
  men 
  
in 
  the 
  group 
  had 
  made 
  “credible 
  threats 
  of 
  self-­‐harm.” 
  The 
  University 
  chose 
  to 
  delay 
  the 
  

 
  

14 
    
  

 announcement 
  until 
  the 
  students 
  were 
  back 
  from 
  their 
  holiday 
  break 
  so 
  that 
  they 
  could 
  access 
  
counselling 
  services 
  on 
  campus. 
   
  
Critics 
  complained 
  that 
  the 
  13 
  had 
  only 
  been 
  banished 
  from 
  the 
  classrooms 
  and 
  Clinic. 
  They 
  would 
  
still 
  be 
  in 
  the 
  halls, 
  the 
  library, 
  the 
  dental 
  building, 
  and 
  the 
  wider 
  campus. 
  Some 
  pointed 
  out 
  that 
  
because 
  there 
  had 
  been 
  no 
  investigation, 
  the 
  University 
  had 
  no 
  way 
  of 
  knowing 
  whether 
  other 
  
posters 
  had 
  escaped 
  detection 
  by 
  dropping 
  out 
  of 
  Facebook 
  before 
  the 
  scandal 
  broke. 
  At 
  the 
  same 
  
time, 
  they 
  said, 
  some 
  of 
  the 
  suspended 
  students 
  might 
  have 
  had 
  a 
  relatively 
  minor 
  role 
  in 
  the 
  
postings 
  or 
  could 
  have 
  been 
  innocent 
  bystanders. 
  Critics 
  also 
  noted 
  that 
  the 
  suspensions 
  trained 
  
the 
  spotlight 
  solely 
  on 
  the 
  students. 
  What 
  about 
  investigating 
  the 
  professors 
  implicated 
  in 
  the 
  
Facebook 
  posts? 
  For 
  different 
  reasons, 
  critics 
  seemed 
  to 
  agree 
  that 
  suspensions 
  were 
  inadequate 
  
to 
  address 
  the 
  situation. 
  The 
  Chronicle-­‐Herald 
  reported 
  that 
  the 
  suspensions, 
  following 
  on 
  the 
  
heels 
  of 
  the 
  “pre-­‐Christmas 
  promise 
  of 
  restorative 
  justice…just 
  seemed 
  to 
  fan 
  the 
  fury 
  in 
  many 
  
quarters.” 
  
Views 
  and 
  critical 
  reviews 
  on 
  restorative 
  justice 
  
On 
  January 
  5th, 
  the 
  first 
  day 
  back 
  from 
  the 
  holiday 
  break, 
  an 
  RJ 
  advisor 
  (a 
  Dalhousie 
  law 
  professor 
  
with 
  RJ 
  expertise) 
  and 
  two 
  RJ 
  facilitators 
  (an 
  HREHP 
  staff 
  member 
  and 
  a 
  campus 
  security 
  officer) 
  
briefed 
  the 
  whole 
  2015 
  dentistry 
  class. 
  Based 
  on 
  a 
  preliminary 
  assessment 
  that 
  had 
  continued 
  
over 
  the 
  break, 
  the 
  facilitators 
  invited 
  the 
  entire 
  class 
  to 
  take 
  part 
  in 
  the 
  process. 
  Students 
  were 
  
told 
  that 
  their 
  participation 
  was 
  voluntary 
  and 
  that 
  they 
  could 
  withdraw 
  at 
  any 
  time. 
  By 
  signing 
  
the 
  written 
  consent 
  form, 
  participants 
  agreed 
  to 
  disclose 
  “all 
  information 
  that 
  is 
  relevant 
  to 
  the 
  
issues 
  raised.” 
  The 
  information 
  would 
  be 
  received 
  in 
  confidence 
  and 
  could 
  not 
  be 
  used 
  in 
  any 
  
other 
  Dalhousie 
  process 
  without 
  their 
  agreement. 
  The 
  RJ 
  process 
  would 
  not 
  interfere 
  with 
  the 
  
freedom 
  of 
  other 
  individuals 
  to 
  proceed 
  with 
  complaints 
  under 
  other 
  processes. 
  The 
  facilitators 
  
distributed 
  information 
  about 
  alternative 
  options. 
  They 
  encouraged 
  the 
  men 
  to 
  consult 
  their 
  
lawyers 
  if 
  they 
  were 
  represented. 
   
  
Student 
  A 
  attended 
  the 
  January 
  5th 
  meeting 
  but 
  did 
  not 
  sign 
  the 
  consent 
  form 
  because, 
  she 
  said, 
  
she 
  did 
  not 
  wish 
  to 
  sit 
  in 
  a 
  room 
  with 
  men 
  who 
  had 
  bullied 
  her. 
  Her 
  decision 
  not 
  to 
  participate 
  in 
  
RJ 
  marked 
  a 
  point 
  of 
  separation 
  from 
  the 
  rest 
  of 
  her 
  class. 
  Thereafter, 
  she 
  felt 
  that 
  she 
  was 
  living 
  
in 
  something 
  akin 
  to 
  a 
  “black 
  box.” 
  In 
  a 
  move 
  that 
  was 
  undoubtedly 
  intended 
  for 
  her 
  safety, 
  she 
  
was 
  assigned 
  a 
  separate 
  room 
  to 
  do 
  her 
  remaining 
  clinic 
  work, 
  increasing 
  her 
  feeling 
  of 
  isolation. 
  
She 
  also 
  perceived 
  a 
  shift 
  in 
  the 
  mood 
  at 
  the 
  dental 
  school. 
  The 
  anger 
  initially 
  focused 
  on 
  the 
  
Facebook 
  group 
  seemed 
  to 
  have 
  spread 
  to 
  her 
  and 
  Student 
  B. 
  Both 
  of 
  them 
  began 
  to 
  feel 
  like 
  the 
  
new 
  scapegoats 
  of 
  the 
  crisis. 
   
  
Out 
  of 
  a 
  class 
  of 
  46 
  (25 
  men 
  and 
  21 
  women), 
  15 
  male 
  students 
  (12 
  of 
  the 
  13 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  and 
  
three 
  other 
  male 
  dental 
  students) 
  and 
  14 
  female 
  students 
  decided 
  to 
  participate 
  in 
  the 
  RJ 
  
process—a 
  63 
  per 
  cent 
  participation 
  rate. 
  Subtracting 
  the 
  eight 
  international 
  qualifying 
  program 
  
students 
  (known 
  as 
  QPs) 
  who 
  were 
  treated 
  as 
  a 
  separate 
  group, 
  the 
  participation 
  rate 
  was 
  76 
  per 
  
cent. 
  Six 
  of 
  the 
  nine 
  fourth-­‐year 
  women 
  directly 
  targeted 
  on 
  Facebook 
  participated. 
  Speaking 
  to 
  a 
  
Global 
  News 
  reporter 
  several 
  months 
  later 
  about 
  their 
  choice, 
  one 
  said, 
  “We 
  wanted 
  a 
  shot 
  at 
  

 
  

15 
    
  

 least 
  of 
  graduating 
  alongside 
  13 
  much 
  more 
  thoughtful” 
  men, 
  rather 
  than 
  expelling 
  “thirteen 
  
angry 
  men.” 
   
  
Several 
  students 
  joined 
  Student 
  A 
  in 
  choosing 
  not 
  to 
  participate 
  in 
  the 
  RJ 
  process. 
  On 
  January 
  6th, 
  
the 
  CBC 
  published 
  an 
  open 
  letter 
  to 
  Dalhousie’s 
  President 
  that 
  it 
  said 
  was 
  from 
  four 
  unnamed 
  
female 
  dental 
  students. 
  They 
  wrote 
  that 
  the 
  informal 
  Sexual 
  Harassment 
  Policy 
  was 
  the 
  wrong 
  
process 
  to 
  resolve 
  the 
  scandal 
  and 
  that 
  RJ 
  was 
  “an 
  inappropriate 
  solution.” 
  
Some 
  observers 
  questioned 
  whether 
  the 
  women 
  who 
  had 
  opted 
  for 
  RJ 
  had 
  been 
  given 
  enough 
  
information 
  to 
  make 
  an 
  informed 
  decision. 
  At 
  least 
  one 
  female 
  student 
  contacted 
  the 
  press 
  to 
  say 
  
that 
  she 
  was 
  not 
  comfortable 
  with 
  the 
  RJ 
  process 
  but 
  was 
  not 
  coming 
  forward 
  publicly 
  or 
  with 
  a 
  
formal 
  complaint 
  for 
  fear 
  that 
  it 
  would 
  “affect 
  her 
  academic 
  standing 
  and 
  career.” 
  One 
  fourth-­‐year 
  
female 
  dental 
  student 
  told 
  the 
  CBC 
  that 
  RJ 
  was 
  unacceptable 
  because 
  it 
  felt 
  “shocking 
  to 
  be 
  asked 
  
to 
  discipline 
  my 
  own 
  peers.” 
  A 
  former 
  Dalhousie 
  employee, 
  quoted 
  on 
  the 
  Anonymous 
  Twitter 
  
account, 
  accused 
  the 
  University 
  of 
  systematically 
  suppressing 
  human 
  rights 
  complaints 
  and 
  using 
  
RJ 
  to 
  “sweep 
  things 
  under 
  the 
  rug.” 
  In 
  response 
  to 
  these 
  views, 
  the 
  29 
  participants 
  in 
  the 
  RJ 
  
process 
  wrote 
  a 
  joint, 
  confidential 
  letter 
  to 
  the 
  President 
  in 
  support 
  of 
  RJ. 
   
  
Another 
  rally 
  of 
  about 
  300 
  angry 
  students, 
  staff, 
  and 
  members 
  of 
  the 
  public 
  protested 
  that 
  the 
  
University’s 
  whole 
  response 
  was 
  insufficient. 
  The 
  Gender 
  and 
  Women’s 
  Studies 
  Program 
  
organized 
  a 
  “Forum 
  on 
  Misogyny” 
  on 
  January 
  15th 
  to 
  try 
  to 
  bring 
  expertise 
  to 
  bear 
  upon 
  the 
  crisis. 
  
It 
  attracted 
  a 
  live 
  audience 
  of 
  700, 
  with 
  6,000 
  following 
  on 
  line. 
  Social 
  media 
  postings 
  remained 
  
primarily 
  negative, 
  with 
  bloggers 
  calling 
  the 
  University’s 
  actions 
  a 
  “seemingly 
  lackadaisical 
  
approach 
  to 
  justice.” 
  Still 
  others 
  called 
  for 
  the 
  President 
  to 
  resign. 
  
The 
  University 
  made 
  a 
  significant 
  effort 
  to 
  explain 
  the 
  length, 
  depth, 
  and 
  substance 
  of 
  RJ 
  to 
  the 
  
public, 
  but 
  to 
  no 
  avail. 
  Lacking 
  understanding 
  of 
  the 
  process, 
  critics 
  painted 
  a 
  picture 
  of 
  students 
  
sitting 
  in 
  a 
  circle 
  “singing 
  Kumbaya.” 
   
  
Student 
  B 
  gets 
  a 
  closed 
  hearing 
  
Although 
  he 
  had 
  been 
  publicly 
  identified 
  as 
  “the 
  Whistleblower,” 
  Dentistry 
  included 
  Student 
  B 
  in 
  
the 
  interim 
  suspension 
  order 
  of 
  January 
  5th. 
  He 
  felt 
  that 
  since 
  he 
  had 
  tried 
  to 
  intervene 
  to 
  stop 
  the 
  
objectionable 
  posts, 
  he 
  should 
  not 
  be 
  lumped 
  together 
  with 
  the 
  rest 
  of 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group. 
  The 
  
ASCC 
  set 
  January 
  8th 
  as 
  the 
  deadline 
  to 
  lodge 
  a 
  notice 
  of 
  objection 
  to 
  the 
  suspensions. 
  Student 
  B 
  
retained 
  lawyers 
  to 
  prepare 
  his. 
  A 
  Dalhousie 
  professor 
  outside 
  the 
  dental 
  faculty 
  started 
  a 
  
crowdfunding 
  campaign 
  to 
  raise 
  money 
  to 
  defray 
  Student 
  B’s 
  legal 
  costs. 
  On 
  January 
  14th, 
  the 
  
ASCC 
  advised 
  Student 
  B 
  that 
  it 
  would 
  be 
  considering 
  whether 
  to 
  impose 
  a 
  remediation 
  plan 
  or 
  
academic 
  dismissal. 
   
  
Student 
  B’s 
  lawyers 
  strenuously 
  objected 
  to 
  several 
  points 
  about 
  the 
  ASCC’s 
  process. 
  They 
  
questioned 
  the 
  impartiality 
  of 
  the 
  dentistry 
  professors 
  on 
  ASCC 
  and 
  whether 
  they 
  were 
  qualified 
  
to 
  rule 
  on 
  issues 
  involving 
  misogyny. 
  They 
  said 
  that 
  ASCC 
  had 
  little 
  experience 
  with 
  and 
  limited 
  
jurisdiction 
  over 
  student 
  discipline. 
  They 
  objected 
  to 
  the 
  lack 
  of 
  investigation 
  and 
  to 
  the 
  
insufficient 
  disclosure 
  of 
  the 
  case 
  against 
  their 
  client 
  or 
  about 
  the 
  procedure 
  that 
  ASCC 
  would 
  

 
  

16 
    
  

 follow. 
  They 
  said 
  that 
  there 
  was 
  no 
  way 
  of 
  knowing 
  whether 
  the 
  approximately 
  50 
  screenshots 
  
were 
  representative 
  of 
  the 
  hundreds 
  of 
  pages 
  not 
  produced. 
  They 
  said 
  that 
  Dalhousie 
  had 
  not 
  
advised 
  students 
  that 
  their 
  private 
  social 
  media 
  exchanges 
  were 
  subject 
  to 
  University 
  oversight. 
  
They 
  insisted 
  that 
  their 
  client 
  was 
  an 
  infrequent 
  and 
  passive 
  participant, 
  suspended 
  for 
  mere 
  
membership 
  in 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group. 
  They 
  argued 
  that 
  Dentistry 
  had 
  created 
  a 
  new 
  punitive 
  
“professionalism 
  offence” 
  in 
  order 
  to 
  circumvent 
  the 
  due 
  process 
  safeguards 
  attached 
  to 
  Senate 
  
disciplinary 
  procedures. 
  They 
  called 
  it 
  an 
  attempt 
  to 
  create 
  “a 
  new 
  legal 
  standard 
  in 
  universities 
  
and 
  in 
  Canada” 
  designed 
  to 
  “quell 
  an 
  unquenchable 
  public 
  appetite 
  for 
  bloodlust.” 
  They 
  said 
  that 
  
the 
  RJ 
  process 
  was 
  premature, 
  and 
  would 
  only 
  have 
  been 
  appropriate 
  after 
  a 
  full 
  investigation, 
  a 
  
hearing, 
  and 
  a 
  finding 
  of 
  unprofessionalism. 
  
On 
  January 
  18th, 
  Student 
  B 
  confirmed 
  that 
  he 
  would 
  not 
  be 
  joining 
  the 
  RJ 
  process, 
  despite 
  his 
  
initial 
  expression 
  of 
  interest. 
  He 
  said 
  that 
  the 
  University 
  had 
  “tried 
  to 
  pressure 
  him 
  into 
  joining,” 
  
and 
  that 
  none 
  of 
  the 
  students 
  had 
  been 
  given 
  an 
  opportunity 
  for 
  “reflection 
  and 
  choice.” 
  His 
  role 
  
in 
  disclosing 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  had 
  been 
  revealed 
  at 
  the 
  outset 
  of 
  the 
  RJ 
  process, 
  and 
  he 
  felt 
  that 
  
he 
  was 
  becoming 
  the 
  target 
  of 
  growing 
  hostility 
  as 
  a 
  result. 
  He 
  needed 
  to 
  take 
  a 
  different 
  path 
  
from 
  that 
  of 
  his 
  classmates. 
   
  
Rumours 
  continued 
  to 
  swirl 
  around 
  the 
  campus 
  about 
  who 
  had 
  sent 
  the 
  screenshots 
  to 
  the 
  media. 
  
Student 
  B 
  was 
  now 
  widely 
  believed 
  to 
  be 
  the 
  likely 
  culprit, 
  which 
  he 
  vigorously 
  denied 
  and 
  
continues 
  to 
  deny. 
  In 
  his 
  view, 
  participating 
  in 
  the 
  RJ 
  process 
  would 
  constitute 
  an 
  admission 
  of 
  
guilt, 
  which 
  he 
  was 
  not 
  prepared 
  to 
  make. 
  The 
  RJ 
  facilitators 
  would 
  later 
  object 
  that 
  
“acknowledgment 
  of 
  guilt 
  in 
  other 
  processes” 
  was 
  not 
  a 
  prerequisite. 
  The 
  only 
  requirement 
  was 
  
for 
  participants 
  to 
  “be 
  truthful” 
  and 
  to 
  “reflect 
  and 
  give 
  an 
  account 
  of 
  their 
  actions, 
  roles, 
  and 
  
responsibilities 
  for 
  the 
  harms 
  identified.” 
   
  
Neither 
  the 
  ASCC 
  nor 
  the 
  University 
  investigated 
  Student 
  B’s 
  conduct. 
  On 
  January 
  20th, 
  the 
  
opening 
  of 
  the 
  ASCC 
  hearing, 
  Dentistry’s 
  Clinic 
  Assistant 
  Dean, 
  represented 
  by 
  counsel, 
  made 
  the 
  
case 
  against 
  Student 
  B. 
  Student 
  B’s 
  lawyers 
  had 
  asked 
  for 
  an 
  open 
  public 
  inquiry, 
  but 
  the 
  hearing 
  
was 
  held 
  in 
  private. 
  The 
  University 
  maintained 
  that 
  this 
  was 
  necessary 
  to 
  maintain 
  the 
  privacy 
  of 
  
other 
  students. 
  Student 
  B’s 
  lawyers 
  refuted 
  the 
  allegations 
  against 
  their 
  client. 
  They 
  asked 
  ASCC 
  to 
  
find 
  him 
  not 
  guilty 
  of 
  blatant 
  unprofessionalism 
  and 
  to 
  expunge 
  his 
  suspension. 
   
  
On 
  March 
  6th, 
  ASCC 
  found 
  Student 
  B 
  guilty 
  of 
  professional 
  misconduct 
  related 
  to 
  sexism, 
  misogyny, 
  
and 
  homophobia. 
  He 
  was 
  allowed 
  to 
  return 
  to 
  clinical 
  work, 
  subject 
  to 
  certain 
  conditions. 
  His 
  
lawyer 
  divulged 
  that 
  the 
  conditions 
  included 
  acknowledging 
  professional 
  misconduct 
  and 
  
participating 
  in 
  remedial 
  initiatives 
  such 
  as 
  private 
  counselling, 
  writing 
  essays, 
  attending 
  public 
  
lectures, 
  and 
  refreshing 
  his 
  clinical 
  skills. 
  His 
  lawyer’s 
  request 
  that 
  his 
  suspension 
  be 
  expunged 
  was 
  
rejected. 
  
Professors 
  outside 
  Dentistry 
  offer 
  to 
  help 
  and 
  try 
  to 
  intervene 
  
From 
  the 
  outset 
  of 
  the 
  crisis, 
  some 
  faculty 
  members 
  outside 
  the 
  dental 
  school 
  felt 
  a 
  responsibility 
  
to 
  intervene. 
  They 
  wanted 
  to 
  support 
  the 
  female 
  dental 
  students 
  and 
  the 
  President, 
  scrutinize 
  the 
  

 
  

17 
    
  

 University’s 
  complaints 
  system 
  to 
  ensure 
  that 
  it 
  could 
  respond 
  to 
  the 
  situation, 
  and 
  help 
  to 
  rebuild 
  
trust 
  in 
  the 
  University. 
  
A 
  group 
  of 
  eight 
  met 
  with 
  the 
  President 
  informally 
  on 
  December 
  17th 
  to 
  offer 
  their 
  collective 
  
expertise 
  in 
  human 
  rights 
  and 
  discrimination 
  issues, 
  and 
  to 
  stress 
  the 
  need 
  for 
  both 
  individual 
  and 
  
systemic 
  responses. 
  They 
  were 
  not 
  satisfied 
  with 
  the 
  President’s 
  response 
  at 
  the 
  meeting, 
  and 
  
they 
  were 
  concerned 
  about 
  his 
  public 
  announcement 
  that 
  evening 
  about 
  the 
  RJ 
  process. 
  They 
  felt 
  
that 
  their 
  attempt 
  to 
  offer 
  help 
  had 
  failed, 
  and 
  that 
  they 
  had 
  no 
  option 
  but 
  to 
  speak 
  out. 
  On 
  
December 
  19th, 
  five 
  faculty 
  members 
  posted 
  a 
  Statement 
  Against 
  Misogyny 
  and 
  Gendered 
  
Violence 
  on 
  the 
  internet. 
  Three 
  hundred 
  Dalhousie 
  professors 
  and 
  staff 
  members 
  signed 
  on. 
   
  
On 
  December 
  21st, 
  relying 
  on 
  the 
  President’s 
  public 
  statement 
  that 
  a 
  formal 
  complaint 
  could 
  
proceed 
  alongside 
  the 
  RJ 
  process, 
  four 
  Dalhousie 
  professors 
  (from 
  medicine, 
  law, 
  anthropology, 
  
and 
  music/gender 
  & 
  women’s 
  studies) 
  filed 
  a 
  complaint 
  under 
  the 
  Code 
  of 
  Student 
  Conduct. 
  They 
  
stated 
  that 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  were 
  “threats 
  of 
  sexual 
  assault” 
  and 
  “acts 
  of 
  sexual 
  harassment.” 
  
They 
  considered 
  the 
  RJ 
  process 
  insufficient 
  to 
  address 
  the 
  wider 
  communities 
  affected, 
  including 
  
female 
  dental 
  students 
  in 
  other 
  classes, 
  dental 
  hygiene 
  students, 
  dental 
  assistant 
  students 
  from 
  
the 
  local 
  college 
  who 
  trained 
  in 
  the 
  Clinic, 
  female 
  dentistry 
  professors, 
  female 
  staff, 
  and 
  Clinic 
  
patients. 
  The 
  professors 
  intended 
  their 
  formal 
  complaint 
  to 
  be 
  “an 
  alternative 
  or 
  complement 
  to 
  
the 
  informal 
  process 
  underway 
  under 
  the 
  Sexual 
  Harassment 
  Policy.” 
  They 
  requested 
  an 
  
investigation 
  and 
  suspension 
  for 
  any 
  student 
  who 
  had 
  actively 
  participated 
  in 
  the 
  offensive 
  posts, 
  
through 
  the 
  Senate 
  disciplinary 
  process. 
  They 
  put 
  their 
  names 
  on 
  the 
  complaint, 
  but 
  at 
  this 
  point 
  
asked 
  that 
  their 
  identities 
  be 
  kept 
  confidential. 
   
  
Two 
  weeks 
  later, 
  on 
  January 
  4th, 
  citing 
  the 
  University’s 
  unwarranted 
  delay 
  in 
  proceeding, 
  they 
  
made 
  public 
  their 
  identities 
  and 
  the 
  complaint. 
  The 
  four 
  professors 
  explained 
  that 
  they 
  had 
  
identified 
  themselves 
  in 
  the 
  hope 
  that 
  no 
  dentistry 
  student 
  would 
  have 
  to 
  suffer 
  negative 
  
consequences 
  for 
  putting 
  her 
  name 
  forward. 
  The 
  Association 
  of 
  Nova 
  Scotia 
  University 
  Teachers 
  
issued 
  a 
  statement 
  applauding 
  the 
  four. 
  An 
  open 
  letter 
  said 
  to 
  be 
  from 
  four 
  unidentified 
  female 
  
students 
  in 
  the 
  fourth-­‐year 
  dental 
  class, 
  published 
  by 
  the 
  CBC 
  on 
  January 
  6th, 
  supported 
  the 
  
professors’ 
  complaint. 
  The 
  students 
  said 
  that 
  they 
  had 
  felt 
  silenced 
  and 
  discouraged 
  from 
  
proceeding 
  formally. 
  They 
  added 
  “that 
  no 
  individual 
  woman 
  in 
  our 
  class 
  should 
  be 
  required 
  to 
  
advance 
  a 
  formal 
  complaint 
  in 
  her 
  own 
  name, 
  or 
  to 
  participate 
  as 
  a 
  witness. 
  The 
  University 
  has 
  
enough 
  information 
  to 
  initiate 
  an 
  investigation 
  and 
  move 
  forward.” 
  
On 
  January 
  10th, 
  the 
  University 
  told 
  the 
  professors 
  that 
  their 
  formal 
  complaint 
  could 
  not 
  proceed 
  
because 
  the 
  Code 
  of 
  Student 
  Conduct 
  did 
  not 
  apply 
  to 
  behaviour 
  that 
  was 
  already 
  “subject 
  to 
  
action 
  as 
  an 
  alleged 
  failure 
  to 
  meet 
  standards 
  of 
  professional 
  conduct.” 
  In 
  other 
  words, 
  the 
  
conduct 
  of 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  was 
  already 
  under 
  review 
  by 
  Dentistry’s 
  ASCC, 
  and 
  no 
  longer 
  
eligible 
  for 
  consideration 
  by 
  the 
  Senate 
  Discipline 
  Committee. 
  
A 
  protracted 
  debate 
  then 
  ensued 
  over 
  timing. 
  

 
  

18 
    
  

 The 
  four 
  professors 
  issued 
  a 
  statement 
  claiming 
  that 
  they 
  had 
  given 
  the 
  University 
  notice 
  on 
  
December 
  19th 
  that 
  they 
  would 
  be 
  filing 
  a 
  complaint, 
  and 
  had 
  filed 
  it 
  on 
  December 
  21st. 
  The 
  ASCC 
  
process 
  was 
  first 
  initiated 
  on 
  December 
  22nd, 
  when 
  the 
  Clinic 
  Assistant 
  Dean 
  decided 
  to 
  suspend 
  
the 
  students. 
  The 
  ASCC 
  had 
  not 
  confirmed 
  his 
  decision 
  until 
  January 
  6th. 
  Therefore, 
  the 
  behaviour 
  
that 
  was 
  the 
  subject 
  of 
  the 
  complaint 
  was 
  not, 
  at 
  the 
  time 
  the 
  complaint 
  was 
  filed, 
  “subject 
  to 
  an 
  
action 
  as 
  an 
  alleged 
  failure 
  to 
  meet 
  standards 
  of 
  professional 
  conduct.” 
  
The 
  University 
  claimed 
  that 
  the 
  complaint 
  filed 
  on 
  December 
  21st 
  contained 
  non-­‐disclosure 
  
conditions 
  that 
  meant 
  it 
  could 
  not 
  be 
  accepted 
  at 
  that 
  point. 
  The 
  ASCC 
  process 
  started 
  on 
  the 
  
morning 
  of 
  December 
  22nd, 
  and 
  the 
  professors 
  did 
  not 
  lift 
  the 
  conditions 
  until 
  that 
  afternoon. 
  The 
  
professors 
  objected 
  that 
  they 
  had 
  waived 
  the 
  conditions 
  as 
  soon 
  as 
  they 
  learned 
  about 
  the 
  
problem. 
  They 
  pointed 
  out 
  that 
  neither 
  they 
  nor 
  the 
  public 
  had 
  been 
  notified 
  that 
  the 
  ASCC 
  was 
  
involved 
  until 
  January, 
  well 
  after 
  they 
  filed 
  their 
  complaint. 
  The 
  two 
  groups 
  never 
  resolved 
  their 
  
disagreement 
  on 
  the 
  timing. 
  
The 
  professors 
  objected 
  to 
  moving 
  the 
  issue 
  to 
  ASCC 
  on 
  other 
  grounds. 
  They 
  said 
  they 
  were 
  
“concerned 
  and 
  bewildered” 
  that 
  the 
  only 
  formal 
  process 
  was 
  to 
  be 
  adjudicated 
  by 
  a 
  committee 
  
entirely 
  internal 
  to 
  Dentistry. 
  This 
  was 
  the 
  very 
  faculty 
  that 
  the 
  University 
  had 
  just 
  announced 
  
would 
  soon 
  come 
  under 
  review 
  by 
  this 
  Task 
  Force 
  for 
  “misogyny, 
  sexism, 
  and 
  homophobia.” 
  The 
  
University 
  had 
  also 
  announced 
  an 
  internal 
  strategic 
  initiative 
  committee, 
  chaired 
  by 
  the 
  Dean 
  of 
  
Law, 
  Kim 
  Brooks, 
  in 
  partnership 
  with 
  Dalhousie’s 
  Senate, 
  to 
  examine 
  wider 
  issues 
  of 
  diversity 
  and 
  
inclusivity 
  on 
  the 
  whole 
  campus. 
   
  
A 
  new 
  discovery 
  in 
  the 
  dentistry 
  building 
  had 
  helped 
  to 
  create 
  the 
  impetus 
  for 
  these 
  external 
  
assessments 
  of 
  the 
  problems 
  at 
  the 
  dental 
  school 
  
The 
  “historical” 
  walls 
  are 
  discovered 
  
For 
  many 
  years, 
  the 
  walls 
  in 
  the 
  room 
  behind 
  the 
  bar 
  in 
  the 
  student 
  lounge 
  known 
  as 
  “the 
  Cavity” 
  
had 
  been 
  covered 
  in 
  homophobic, 
  sexist, 
  and 
  sexually 
  explicit 
  comments 
  and 
  images. 
  Student 
  and 
  
faculty 
  names 
  were 
  scribbled 
  alongside 
  many 
  of 
  the 
  images. 
  Student 
  A 
  and 
  other 
  students 
  had 
  
recommended 
  that 
  the 
  graffiti 
  be 
  painted 
  over. 
  Some 
  of 
  their 
  classmates 
  objected 
  on 
  the 
  grounds 
  
that 
  it 
  was 
  part 
  of 
  their 
  history. 
   
  
After 
  its 
  “discovery,” 
  many 
  dentistry 
  professors 
  insisted 
  that 
  they 
  had 
  not 
  known 
  about 
  the 
  
graffiti. 
  They 
  said 
  that 
  the 
  room 
  was 
  locked 
  with 
  keys 
  only 
  available 
  to 
  the 
  students 
  and 
  the 
  
University. 
  However, 
  it 
  appears 
  that 
  Homecoming 
  receptions 
  were 
  held 
  in 
  that 
  lounge, 
  and 
  that 
  
alumni 
  were 
  known 
  to 
  regale 
  listeners 
  with 
  stories 
  of 
  what 
  they 
  had 
  written. 
  They 
  would 
  check 
  
out 
  the 
  walls 
  to 
  see 
  if 
  their 
  contributions 
  were 
  still 
  there 
  and 
  look 
  to 
  see 
  what 
  had 
  been 
  written 
  
since. 
  
A 
  dental 
  school 
  staff 
  member 
  had 
  responded 
  to 
  a 
  request 
  from 
  a 
  student 
  lounge 
  manager 
  to 
  paint 
  
over 
  the 
  graffiti: 
  “It 
  was 
  unfortunate 
  that 
  the 
  bar 
  was 
  not 
  included 
  at 
  the 
  time 
  the 
  Lounge 
  was 
  
painted, 
  as 
  it 
  would 
  not 
  have 
  made 
  much 
  difference 
  in 
  the 
  overall 
  cost. 
  At 
  the 
  time, 
  it 
  was 
  
believed 
  there 
  was 
  historical 
  value 
  to 
  the 
  graffiti 
  on 
  the 
  walls.” 
  To 
  say 
  that 
  the 
  scrawled 
  images 
  

 
  

19 
    
  

 and 
  captions 
  (dating 
  back 
  more 
  than 
  a 
  decade) 
  disclosed 
  a 
  preoccupation 
  with 
  the 
  size 
  and 
  use 
  of 
  
male 
  genitalia 
  would 
  be 
  an 
  understatement. 
  
The 
  University’s 
  Senate 
  responds 
  
On 
  January 
  12th, 
  at 
  its 
  first 
  meeting 
  after 
  the 
  holidays, 
  Dalhousie’s 
  Senate 
  discussed 
  whether 
  ASCC, 
  
a 
  body 
  entirely 
  internal 
  to 
  Dentistry, 
  should 
  adjudicate 
  the 
  matter 
  of 
  the 
  behaviour 
  of 
  the 
  
Facebook 
  group 
  members. 
  Some 
  elected 
  senators 
  argued 
  that 
  the 
  damage 
  to 
  Dentistry’s 
  
credibility 
  had 
  left 
  it 
  incapable 
  of 
  completing 
  an 
  internal 
  review, 
  and 
  that 
  the 
  Senate 
  disciplinary 
  
process 
  was 
  the 
  preferable 
  route. 
  A 
  motion 
  to 
  pre-­‐empt 
  the 
  ASCC 
  deliberations 
  was 
  introduced, 
  
but 
  tabled. 
   
  
After 
  protracted 
  skirmishing, 
  debate 
  resumed 
  at 
  a 
  special 
  meeting 
  of 
  the 
  Senate 
  on 
  January 
  19th. 
  
Normally, 
  the 
  Senate’s 
  meetings 
  are 
  public. 
  The 
  special 
  meeting 
  on 
  January 
  19th 
  was 
  held 
  in 
  
private, 
  leaving 
  the 
  public 
  without 
  any 
  further 
  information. 
   
  On 
  January 
  30th, 
  the 
  University’s 
  legal 
  
counsel 
  wrote 
  to 
  all 
  members 
  of 
  the 
  Senate 
  to 
  recommend 
  that 
  they 
  refrain 
  from 
  any 
  public 
  
comment 
  on 
  the 
  matter. 
   
  
A 
  representative 
  from 
  the 
  Dalhousie 
  Student 
  Union 
  told 
  the 
  press, 
  
I’m 
  almost 
  embarrassed 
  at 
  this 
  point 
  that 
  that’s 
  the 
  way 
  everything 
  went 
  
down. 
  We 
  have 
  people 
  on 
  both 
  sides 
  of 
  the 
  story…that 
  have 
  serious 
  problems 
  
with 
  the 
  way 
  everything 
  is 
  happening. 
  So 
  I 
  can’t 
  imagine 
  what 
  you’re 
  doing 
  in 
  
the 
  name 
  of 
  a 
  just 
  process 
  over 
  a 
  month 
  and 
  a 
  half 
  that 
  people 
  on 
  both 
  sides 
  
are 
  telling 
  you 
  that 
  you’re 
  not 
  getting 
  it 
  right. 
  
Outside 
  Dalhousie, 
  the 
  media 
  continued 
  to 
  report 
  on 
  the 
  criticisms. 
  
The 
  Halifax 
  police 
  enter 
  the 
  fray 
  
By 
  mid-­‐January, 
  the 
  Halifax 
  police 
  force 
  was 
  involved. 
  The 
  constable 
  who 
  spoke 
  to 
  the 
  media 
  said 
  
that 
  the 
  police 
  had 
  not 
  received 
  complaints 
  from 
  any 
  of 
  the 
  people 
  involved, 
  but 
  members 
  of 
  the 
  
public 
  were 
  demanding 
  an 
  investigation. 
  The 
  police 
  were 
  appealing 
  to 
  the 
  female 
  dental 
  students 
  
to 
  come 
  forward. 
  Some 
  of 
  them, 
  already 
  deeply 
  upset, 
  became 
  even 
  more 
  anxious 
  about 
  whether 
  
this 
  meant 
  that 
  they 
  were 
  compelled 
  to 
  go 
  to 
  speak 
  to 
  the 
  police. 
   
  
The 
  police 
  asked 
  the 
  University 
  for 
  the 
  full 
  set 
  of 
  screenshots. 
  They 
  wanted 
  to 
  find 
  out 
  whether 
  
they 
  indicated 
  any 
  criminal 
  wrongdoing. 
  The 
  University 
  refused 
  on 
  the 
  grounds 
  of 
  privacy 
  
concerns 
  and 
  added 
  that, 
  in 
  its 
  assessment, 
  the 
  Facebook 
  material 
  did 
  not 
  reflect 
  criminal 
  
wrongdoing. 
  Global 
  News 
  pointed 
  out 
  that 
  in 
  Nova 
  Scotia, 
  only 
  police 
  officers 
  and 
  Crown 
  
attorneys 
  are 
  able 
  to 
  make 
  the 
  determination 
  of 
  criminal 
  wrongdoing. 
  Within 
  hours, 
  the 
  University 
  
issued 
  another 
  press 
  release 
  reversing 
  its 
  decision. 
  The 
  police 
  received 
  the 
  screenshots 
  on 
  January 
  
13th. 
  After 
  examining 
  them, 
  the 
  police 
  announced 
  that 
  they 
  would 
  not 
  be 
  starting 
  a 
  criminal 
  
investigation 
  or 
  pursuing 
  criminal 
  charges. 
  

 
  

20 
    
  

 Spotlight 
  on 
  the 
  professors 
   
  
On 
  January 
  29th, 
  The 
  Coast, 
  a 
  local 
  weekly 
  paper, 
  reported 
  on 
  four 
  individuals 
  it 
  identified 
  as 
  male 
  
dentistry 
  professors 
  named 
  in 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts. 
  The 
  article 
  included 
  the 
  name 
  and 
  photo 
  of 
  one 
  
and 
  the 
  names 
  of 
  the 
  three 
  others. 
  It 
  included 
  excerpts 
  from 
  the 
  posts. 
  The 
  article 
  noted 
  that 
  the 
  
University 
  had 
  refused 
  to 
  comment 
  on 
  whether 
  the 
  information 
  in 
  the 
  posts 
  had 
  resulted 
  in 
  any 
  
specific 
  allegations 
  of 
  sexual 
  harassment, 
  so 
  the 
  public 
  could 
  not 
  know 
  whether 
  any 
  of 
  the 
  posts 
  
had 
  resulted 
  in 
  the 
  investigation 
  or 
  disciplining 
  of 
  a 
  faculty 
  member. 
   
  
Three 
  of 
  the 
  four 
  individuals 
  named 
  refused 
  to 
  speak 
  on 
  the 
  record 
  about 
  being 
  mentioned 
  in 
  the 
  
posts. 
  Off 
  the 
  record, 
  they 
  said 
  that 
  their 
  personal 
  reputations 
  had 
  been 
  unfairly 
  called 
  into 
  
question. 
  They 
  had 
  been 
  put 
  in 
  the 
  spotlight 
  in 
  connection 
  with 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group, 
  and 
  in 
  their 
  
view, 
  it 
  was 
  completely 
  wrong 
  to 
  draw 
  them 
  into 
  the 
  controversy 
  solely 
  based 
  on 
  inappropriate 
  
postings 
  by 
  students 
  under 
  suspension. 
  
The 
  professor 
  named 
  for 
  showing 
  the 
  bikini 
  video 
  in 
  class 
  was 
  extremely 
  upset. 
  He 
  objected 
  to 
  The 
  
Coast’s 
  assertion 
  that 
  it 
  was 
  meant 
  to 
  wake 
  up 
  the 
  class. 
  He 
  said 
  it 
  had 
  not 
  been 
  shown 
  in 
  a 
  class 
  
on 
  how 
  to 
  do 
  fillings, 
  but 
  as 
  part 
  of 
  a 
  lecture 
  about 
  the 
  importance 
  of 
  effective 
  communication 
  in 
  
oral 
  health. 
  He 
  had 
  intended 
  the 
  video 
  to 
  be 
  a 
  communication 
  message 
  to 
  “help 
  students 
  focus 
  on 
  
the 
  lecture.” 
  A 
  successful 
  commercial 
  airline 
  had 
  produced 
  the 
  video 
  to 
  get 
  the 
  attention 
  of 
  
passengers 
  who 
  tend 
  to 
  disregard 
  the 
  pre-­‐flight 
  safety 
  demonstration. 
  He 
  argued 
  that, 
  compared 
  
with 
  the 
  explicit 
  videos 
  on 
  YouTube 
  and 
  all 
  over 
  the 
  internet, 
  this 
  was 
  tame. 
  He 
  had 
  been 
  
surprised 
  that 
  some 
  students 
  found 
  it 
  objectionable, 
  and 
  had 
  apologized 
  by 
  email 
  and 
  in 
  person 
  at 
  
the 
  next 
  class. 
   
  
In 
  light 
  of 
  all 
  the 
  media 
  attention 
  surrounding 
  the 
  dental 
  school, 
  this 
  professor 
  asked 
  the 
  
University 
  to 
  disclose 
  whether 
  he 
  was 
  the 
  subject 
  of 
  any 
  specific 
  sexual 
  harassment 
  complaints. 
  
Learning 
  that 
  there 
  were 
  none, 
  he 
  told 
  the 
  students 
  in 
  class 
  that 
  he 
  was 
  “not 
  under 
  investigation.” 
  
The 
  video 
  that 
  had 
  caused 
  all 
  the 
  fuss 
  was 
  still 
  on 
  the 
  Air 
  New 
  Zealand 
  website, 
  he 
  told 
  them, 
  and 
  
then 
  he 
  showed 
  them 
  a 
  screenshot 
  of 
  the 
  website 
  to 
  prove 
  his 
  point. 
  More 
  students 
  complained. 
   
  
Observers 
  charged 
  that 
  a 
  double 
  standard 
  existed, 
  with 
  students 
  found 
  guilty 
  of 
  blatant 
  
unprofessionalism 
  and 
  faculty 
  treated 
  more 
  leniently. 
  Some 
  pointed 
  out 
  that 
  the 
  professor 
  who 
  
had 
  “publicly” 
  shown 
  a 
  bikini 
  video 
  in 
  class 
  was 
  allowed 
  to 
  send 
  a 
  “private” 
  email 
  apology 
  to 
  the 
  
students. 
  Yet 
  Student 
  B, 
  who 
  was 
  instrumental 
  in 
  exposing 
  the 
  whole 
  Facebook 
  group, 
  and 
  who 
  
said 
  he 
  had 
  minimal 
  involvement 
  in 
  what 
  he 
  understood 
  to 
  be 
  a 
  “private” 
  group, 
  had 
  been 
  
suspended. 
  

(c) 
  DDS 
  2015 
  prepares 
  to 
  say 
  goodbye 
  to 
  Dalhousie 
  
Apologies, 
  and 
  the 
  end 
  of 
  suspensions 
  
On 
  March 
  1st, 
  the 
  29 
  dental 
  students 
  participating 
  in 
  the 
  RJ 
  process 
  publicly 
  released 
  two 
  joint 
  
letters. 
  In 
  one, 
  signed 
  by 
  all 
  of 
  the 
  men, 
  they 
  apologized 
  for 
  their 
  actions 
  and 
  said 
  that 
  they 
  had 
  
engaged 
  in 
  “intensive 
  and 
  difficult 
  self-­‐reflection.” 
  In 
  the 
  other, 
  signed 
  by 
  some 
  of 
  the 
  women 
  

 
  

21 
    
  

 targeted 
  in 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts, 
  they 
  insisted 
  that 
  they 
  had 
  not 
  been 
  coerced 
  into 
  joining 
  the 
  RJ 
  
process, 
  as 
  some 
  outside 
  observers 
  had 
  suggested. 
  They 
  objected 
  to 
  the 
  ban 
  on 
  their 
  male 
  
colleagues’ 
  attending 
  classes 
  and 
  added 
  that 
  they 
  felt 
  “safe 
  with 
  the 
  members 
  of 
  the 
  Facebook 
  
group.” 
   
  
The 
  ASCC 
  deliberated 
  on 
  whether 
  to 
  lift 
  the 
  suspensions 
  for 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group 
  based 
  on 
  group 
  
and 
  individual 
  meetings 
  and 
  materials 
  filed 
  by 
  the 
  men 
  and 
  the 
  RJ 
  facilitators. 
  The 
  12 
  former 
  
Facebook 
  members 
  gave 
  detailed 
  accounts 
  of 
  their 
  personal 
  involvement 
  with 
  the 
  group. 
  They 
  
produced 
  individual 
  records 
  attesting 
  to 
  their 
  increased 
  understanding 
  of 
  the 
  deep 
  harm 
  caused 
  
by 
  their 
  conduct, 
  and 
  evidence 
  of 
  their 
  collective 
  and 
  individual 
  accountability. 
  On 
  March 
  2nd, 
  
ASCC 
  terminated 
  their 
  two-­‐month-­‐long 
  suspensions, 
  subject 
  to 
  certain 
  conditions. 
  These 
  included 
  
satisfactory 
  completion 
  of 
  the 
  ongoing 
  RJ 
  process 
  and 
  undertaking 
  the 
  obligation 
  to 
  report 
  and 
  
reflect 
  on 
  “any 
  issues 
  arising 
  regarding 
  sexism, 
  homophobia, 
  racism, 
  and 
  other 
  issues 
  of 
  inclusion 
  
and 
  equality.” 
   
  
Returning 
  to 
  the 
  Clinic 
  was 
  critical 
  for 
  the 
  students. 
  They 
  needed 
  to 
  complete 
  clinical 
  credits 
  to 
  
graduate. 
  The 
  12 
  men 
  returned 
  to 
  the 
  Clinic 
  a 
  full 
  four 
  days 
  earlier 
  than 
  Student 
  B, 
  whose 
  
suspension 
  was 
  only 
  lifted 
  on 
  March 
  6th. 
   
  
The 
  RJ 
  process: 
  Success 
  despite 
  many 
  misconceptions 
   
  
The 
  full 
  RJ 
  process 
  took 
  almost 
  five 
  months 
  and 
  was 
  nothing 
  like 
  the 
  “kumbaya 
  sing-­‐song” 
  its 
  
critics 
  claimed 
  it 
  was. 
  
The 
  facilitators 
  conceded 
  that 
  the 
  male 
  students 
  had 
  been 
  under 
  pressure 
  to 
  join 
  the 
  RJ 
  process. 
  
Though 
  “voluntary,” 
  the 
  12 
  male 
  dental 
  students 
  had 
  to 
  “participate 
  fully” 
  or 
  face 
  the 
  fact 
  that 
  
“their 
  case 
  would 
  be 
  returned 
  to 
  the 
  ASCC,” 
  as 
  Student 
  B 
  would 
  learn 
  all 
  too 
  well. 
  
The 
  RJ 
  facilitators 
  made 
  interim 
  progress 
  reports 
  to 
  ASCC 
  and 
  the 
  board 
  of 
  governors. 
  On 
  May 
  2nd, 
  
they 
  delivered 
  their 
  final 
  report 
  to 
  ASCC 
  with 
  individual 
  assessments 
  of 
  each 
  male 
  participant. 
  The 
  
ASCC 
  then 
  met 
  separately 
  with 
  each 
  of 
  the 
  12 
  men. 
  On 
  May 
  6th, 
  ASCC 
  advised 
  that 
  they 
  had 
  all 
  
“remediated” 
  themselves 
  successfully. 
   
  
The 
  RJ 
  facilitators 
  released 
  their 
  public 
  report 
  on 
  the 
  process 
  (the 
  Restorative 
  Justice 
  Report) 
  on 
  
May 
  22nd. 
  The 
  report 
  proved 
  to 
  be 
  a 
  detailed 
  account 
  of 
  an 
  innovative, 
  wide-­‐ranging, 
  educational 
  
and 
  rehabilitation 
  initiative. 
  The 
  process 
  had 
  benefitted 
  from 
  support 
  and 
  input 
  from 
  an 
  
impressive 
  array 
  of 
  local 
  and 
  international 
  experts. 
  Contradicting 
  criticism 
  it 
  was 
  a 
  lackadaisical 
  
approach 
  to 
  justice, 
  the 
  report 
  demonstrated 
  that 
  the 
  RJ 
  process 
  had 
  unfolded 
  through 
  multiple 
  
individual 
  and 
  group 
  meetings, 
  lectures, 
  and 
  workshops, 
  as 
  well 
  as 
  small 
  and 
  large 
  group 
  circles. 
  
The 
  12 
  students 
  from 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group 
  each 
  spent 
  about 
  150 
  hours 
  in 
  group 
  sessions. 
  
Professors 
  from 
  the 
  dental 
  faculty, 
  dental 
  staff, 
  University 
  representatives, 
  members 
  of 
  the 
  dental 
  
profession, 
  and 
  community 
  members 
  participated 
  in 
  the 
  sessions. 
  The 
  topics 
  included 
  rape 
  
culture, 
  sexualized 
  violence, 
  homophobia, 
  human 
  rights, 
  feminism, 
  gender 
  and 
  dentistry, 
  
bystander 
  intervention, 
  mainstream 
  and 
  social 
  media, 
  professionalism, 
  ethics 
  and 
  public 
  trust, 
  
power 
  and 
  privilege, 
  and 
  the 
  intersection 
  of 
  race, 
  culture, 
  gender, 
  and 
  sexuality. 
  Eighty 
  invitees 
  

 
  

22 
    
  

 had 
  attended 
  the 
  student-­‐facilitated 
  “Day 
  of 
  Learning” 
  held 
  on 
  April 
  27th. 
  The 
  full 
  report 
  was 
  
uploaded 
  to 
  the 
  University 
  website. 
  
The 
  public 
  release 
  of 
  the 
  report 
  took 
  place 
  at 
  a 
  press 
  conference 
  at 
  which 
  both 
  the 
  President 
  and 
  
the 
  dean 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  pronounced 
  the 
  process 
  a 
  success. 
  “The 
  men 
  have 
  taken 
  ownership 
  of 
  their 
  
actions,” 
  said 
  the 
  President, 
  and 
  “gained 
  a 
  deep 
  understanding 
  of 
  the 
  harm 
  that 
  was 
  caused. 
  
They’ve 
  apologized 
  to 
  those 
  most 
  deeply 
  impacted.” 
  He 
  concluded 
  that 
  restorative 
  justice 
  was 
  
“the 
  best 
  route 
  to 
  a 
  just 
  and 
  meaningful 
  outcome.” 
  On 
  behalf 
  of 
  the 
  faculty, 
  the 
  dean 
  added 
  that 
  
that 
  they 
  were 
  shocked 
  and 
  ashamed 
  that 
  such 
  an 
  incident 
  had 
  happened 
  “on 
  our 
  watch,” 
  but 
  
that 
  RJ 
  had 
  empowered 
  students, 
  staff, 
  and 
  faculty. 
  “We 
  will 
  emerge 
  a 
  stronger, 
  more 
  supportive 
  
and 
  inclusive 
  community, 
  continuing 
  to 
  build 
  on 
  our 
  proud 
  heritage.” 
  The 
  RJ 
  process 
  was 
  a 
  
“template 
  for 
  other 
  institutions 
  to 
  address 
  similar 
  issues.” 
   
  
Much 
  of 
  the 
  mainstream 
  media 
  lauded 
  the 
  success 
  of 
  the 
  RJ 
  initiative, 
  reporting 
  that 
  the 
  intensive 
  
workshops 
  and 
  sessions 
  had 
  brought 
  the 
  men 
  involved 
  to 
  accept 
  responsibility 
  for 
  their 
  actions, 
  to 
  
undergo 
  extensive 
  learning, 
  and 
  to 
  commit 
  themselves 
  to 
  higher 
  standards 
  in 
  the 
  future. 
  A 
  
Toronto 
  Globe 
  and 
  Mail 
  editorial 
  said 
  that 
  the 
  President’s 
  decision 
  to 
  give 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group 
  a 
  
chance 
  at 
  restorative 
  justice 
  was 
  brave, 
  and 
  that 
  the 
  final 
  outcome 
  of 
  allowing 
  the 
  men 
  to 
  
graduate 
  was 
  the 
  right 
  one. 
  The 
  editorial 
  praised 
  the 
  female 
  dental 
  students 
  who 
  participated, 
  
calling 
  them 
  “the 
  heroes 
  in 
  this 
  story.” 
   
  
The 
  Globe 
  was 
  less 
  impressed 
  with 
  the 
  “whiney” 
  male 
  participants, 
  and 
  found 
  the 
  University’s 
  
“self-­‐congratulatory 
  tone” 
  “unsettling.” 
  Maclean’s 
  was 
  skeptical 
  about 
  whether 
  the 
  Facebook 
  
group 
  members 
  actually 
  understood 
  the 
  harm 
  they 
  had 
  caused. 
  “Their 
  focus 
  appears 
  to 
  be 
  on 
  
repairing 
  their 
  reputations,” 
  noted 
  the 
  reporter. 
  “They 
  write 
  that 
  they’ve 
  been 
  maligned 
  by 
  the 
  
press.” 
  The 
  reporter 
  may 
  have 
  been 
  responding 
  to 
  a 
  statement 
  in 
  the 
  report 
  that 
  described 
  “error-­‐
filled 
  press 
  reports 
  and 
  aggressive 
  media 
  harassment 
  of 
  students” 
  as 
  a 
  threat 
  to 
  the 
  RJ 
  process. 
   
  
Some 
  of 
  the 
  people 
  who 
  did 
  not 
  participate 
  in 
  RJ, 
  or 
  objected 
  to 
  it 
  from 
  the 
  outset, 
  said 
  they 
  were 
  
dismayed 
  by 
  how 
  the 
  report 
  seemed 
  to 
  mischaracterize 
  their 
  positions 
  and 
  concerns 
  and 
  make 
  
their 
  perspectives 
  invisible. 
  The 
  report 
  listed 
  a 
  series 
  of 
  threats 
  to 
  the 
  process 
  that 
  included 
  
“public 
  denouncements” 
  by 
  professors 
  outside 
  of 
  dentistry 
  and 
  the 
  Dalhousie 
  Student 
  Union, 
  as 
  
well 
  as 
  efforts 
  by 
  Dalhousie 
  senators 
  to 
  “quash” 
  the 
  process. 
  Perceived 
  insinuations 
  about 
  their 
  
motives 
  angered 
  the 
  senators, 
  faculty, 
  students, 
  and 
  others 
  who 
  had 
  been 
  critical 
  of 
  using 
  RJ 
  in 
  
the 
  circumstances. 
  They 
  had 
  expended 
  much 
  energy 
  and 
  many 
  tiring 
  hours 
  in 
  what 
  they 
  saw 
  as 
  
legitimate 
  efforts 
  to 
  dismantle 
  discrimination. 
  They 
  felt 
  that 
  colleagues 
  and 
  senior 
  University 
  
administrators 
  had 
  criticized 
  them 
  unfairly. 
  Staff 
  members 
  in 
  Dentistry 
  who 
  had 
  been 
  skeptical 
  
about 
  whether 
  the 
  RJ 
  process 
  would 
  fix 
  the 
  problems 
  they 
  witnessed 
  daily 
  worried 
  that 
  they 
  were 
  
facing 
  threats 
  to 
  job 
  security 
  for 
  voicing 
  those 
  critical 
  views. 
   
  
Some 
  noted 
  that 
  the 
  report 
  did 
  nothing 
  to 
  address 
  concerns 
  that 
  the 
  female 
  students 
  who 
  chose 
  
not 
  to 
  participate 
  had 
  been 
  treated 
  unfairly. 
  One 
  observer 
  commented 
  that 
  the 
  first 
  people 
  the 
  RJ 
  
facilitators 
  should 
  have 
  spoken 
  with 
  were 
  the 
  female 
  dental 
  students 
  who 
  decided 
  not 
  to 
  

 
  

23 
    
  

 participate. 
  “The 
  RJ 
  facilitators 
  should 
  have 
  said, 
  ‘You 
  may 
  not 
  want 
  to 
  proceed 
  with 
  this, 
  but 
  we 
  
sure 
  want 
  your 
  input.’” 
  Their 
  narrative 
  was 
  entirely 
  missing 
  from 
  the 
  report, 
  and 
  their 
  interests 
  
were 
  left 
  unaddressed 
  by 
  the 
  University, 
  noted 
  the 
  critics. 
  “In 
  fact,” 
  said 
  one 
  observer, 
  “the 
  report 
  
goes 
  out 
  of 
  its 
  way 
  to 
  discredit 
  the 
  letter 
  that 
  four 
  female 
  students 
  wrote 
  asking 
  that 
  the 
  
University 
  accept 
  the 
  code 
  of 
  conduct 
  complaint 
  filed 
  on 
  their 
  behalf 
  by 
  faculty 
  members.” 
   
  
In 
  the 
  aftermath 
  of 
  the 
  report, 
  Student 
  A 
  disclosed 
  that 
  she 
  was 
  “obviously” 
  one 
  of 
  those 
  four 
  
women. 
  She 
  knew 
  each 
  of 
  the 
  other 
  three, 
  and 
  all 
  of 
  them 
  had 
  been 
  “extremely 
  hurt” 
  by 
  the 
  
Facebook 
  posts. 
  She 
  did 
  not 
  want 
  to 
  speak 
  for 
  the 
  others, 
  since 
  each 
  would 
  have 
  her 
  own 
  view 
  on 
  
why 
  she 
  preferred 
  the 
  Code 
  of 
  Conduct 
  complaint. 
  But 
  the 
  “letter 
  was 
  real,” 
  she 
  said, 
  and 
  it 
  was 
  
“frustrating 
  to 
  me 
  that 
  they 
  discredited 
  it.” 
   
  
Student 
  A 
  protested 
  that 
  the 
  report 
  did 
  not 
  include 
  her 
  story, 
  making 
  her 
  feel 
  “almost 
  a 
  villain,” 
  as 
  
if 
  “[I] 
  didn’t 
  want 
  to 
  educate 
  my 
  classmates.” 
  There 
  was 
  “no 
  respect 
  for 
  me 
  or 
  what 
  my 
  opinion 
  
was, 
  or 
  the 
  decision 
  I 
  made 
  not 
  to 
  participate.” 
  After 
  she 
  told 
  the 
  University 
  that 
  she 
  would 
  not 
  
participate 
  in 
  the 
  RJ 
  process, 
  she 
  said 
  she 
  never 
  heard 
  back 
  from 
  anyone. 
  “The 
  report 
  says 
  that 
  
support 
  was 
  provided 
  to 
  all 
  of 
  the 
  women. 
  There 
  was 
  no 
  support 
  offered 
  to 
  me.” 
  Obviously, 
  
something 
  had 
  been 
  lost 
  in 
  the 
  message 
  that 
  the 
  University 
  had 
  put 
  forth, 
  where 
  it 
  emphasized 
  
that 
  special 
  arrangements 
  had 
  been 
  made 
  to 
  add 
  resources 
  and 
  that 
  counselling 
  was 
  available 
  to 
  
all. 
  Student 
  A 
   
  said, 
  “No 
  one 
  reached 
  out 
  to 
  me 
  to 
  say, 
  ‘How 
  are 
  things 
  going 
  for 
  you?’ 
  At 
  no 
  point 
  
in 
  time. 
  I 
  was 
  the 
  female 
  who 
  brought 
  forward 
  this 
  complaint!” 
  
Questions 
  lingered 
  about 
  whether 
  the 
  University 
  had 
  followed 
  the 
  right 
  complaint 
  process. 
  Some 
  
continued 
  to 
  believe 
  that 
  what 
  was 
  missing 
  was 
  a 
  full 
  investigation. 
  Student 
  A 
  and 
  her 
  lawyer 
  
endorsed 
  this 
  view, 
  noting 
  that 
  at 
  all 
  times 
  they 
  had 
  been 
  willing 
  to 
  cooperate 
  with 
  an 
  
investigation. 
  
The 
  report 
  disclosed 
  that 
  at 
  its 
  largest, 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group 
  included 
  16 
  male 
  dental 
  students—
three 
  more 
  than 
  had 
  been 
  identified 
  through 
  the 
  screenshots. 
  Why 
  were 
  those 
  three 
  exempted 
  
from 
  scrutiny? 
  Some 
  critics 
  questioned 
  what 
  kind 
  of 
  internal 
  process 
  could 
  satisfy 
  the 
  female 
  
dental 
  students 
  that 
  their 
  male 
  classmates 
  were 
  not 
  a 
  threat. 
  They 
  wondered 
  whether 
  the 
  process 
  
had 
  been 
  properly 
  attentive 
  to 
  the 
  broader 
  issues 
  of 
  public 
  health 
  and 
  safety 
  and 
  the 
  concerns 
  
and 
  vulnerabilities 
  of 
  the 
  patients 
  of 
  the 
  future 
  dentists. 
  
Student 
  A 
  graduates 
  early 
  
Student 
  A 
  continued 
  to 
  believe 
  that 
  the 
  University 
  failed 
  in 
  its 
  obligation 
  to 
  complete 
  a 
  proper 
  
adjudication 
  under 
  the 
  Code 
  of 
  Student 
  Conduct, 
  and 
  then 
  to 
  implement 
  appropriate 
  sanctions. 
  
The 
  President 
  continued 
  to 
  take 
  the 
  position 
  that 
  the 
  RJ 
  process 
  had 
  not 
  foreclosed 
  a 
  formal 
  
complaint 
  from 
  Student 
  A 
  or 
  others 
  under 
  the 
  Sexual 
  Harassment 
  Policy. 
  Student 
  A 
  believed 
  that 
  
the 
  University 
  should 
  have 
  initiated 
  a 
  complaint 
  itself, 
  instead 
  of 
  placing 
  the 
  daunting 
  onus 
  on 
  
individual 
  students. 
  
Student 
  A 
  also 
  believed 
  that 
  she 
  had 
  been 
  unfairly 
  maligned 
  for 
  reporting 
  the 
  harassment 
  to 
  the 
  
University, 
  falsely 
  accused 
  of 
  having 
  leaked 
  documents 
  to 
  the 
  CBC, 
  ostracized 
  by 
  her 
  peers, 
  and 
  

 
  

24 
    
  

 denied 
  her 
  right 
  to 
  pursue 
  her 
  education 
  in 
  an 
  atmosphere 
  free 
  from 
  intimidation. 
  Upon 
  
completion 
  of 
  all 
  her 
  clinical 
  and 
  course 
  requirements, 
  she 
  requested 
  an 
  early 
  departure 
  from 
  the 
  
dental 
  school 
  to 
  remove 
  herself 
  from 
  what 
  she 
  perceived 
  to 
  be 
  an 
  unsafe 
  environment. 
  She 
  was 
  
given 
  permission 
  to 
  graduate 
  early, 
  a 
  decision 
  recommended 
  by 
  Dentistry 
  and 
  approved 
  by 
  the 
  
Senate. 
  The 
  University’s 
  explanation 
  was 
  that 
  she 
  had 
  already 
  completed 
  her 
  requirements, 
  and 
  
would 
  now 
  be 
  able 
  to 
  return 
  to 
  the 
  United 
  States 
  to 
  provide 
  “much 
  needed 
  care 
  for 
  underserviced 
  
areas 
  in 
  her 
  state.” 
  
The 
  Facebook 
  group 
  graduates 
  under 
  a 
  cloud 
  
The 
  media 
  reported 
  that 
  a 
  number 
  of 
  the 
  men 
  had 
  lost 
  employment 
  opportunities 
  and 
  fellowships 
  
or 
  had 
  been 
  passed 
  over 
  for 
  graduate 
  studies 
  because 
  of 
  the 
  scandal. 
  On 
  May 
  22nd, 
  the 
  University 
  
advised 
  that 
  the 
  12 
  male 
  students 
  who 
  participated 
  in 
  the 
  RJ 
  process 
  would 
  be 
  eligible 
  to 
  graduate 
  
on 
  schedule. 
  Student 
  B 
  would 
  also 
  be 
  eligible 
  to 
  graduate 
  on 
  schedule. 
  With 
  the 
  cooperation 
  of 
  
the 
  University, 
  several 
  of 
  the 
  male 
  students 
  chose 
  not 
  to 
  have 
  their 
  names 
  listed 
  publicly 
  on 
  the 
  
roll 
  of 
  successful 
  Dalhousie 
  dental 
  graduates. 
  Student 
  B, 
  whose 
  name 
  had 
  by 
  this 
  time 
  become 
  
almost 
  a 
  household 
  word, 
  was 
  one 
  of 
  the 
  few 
  to 
  let 
  his 
  name 
  go 
  forward. 
  
On 
  April 
  14th, 
  Nova 
  Scotia’s 
  health 
  minister 
  introduced 
  proposed 
  legislative 
  changes 
  at 
  the 
  behest 
  
of 
  the 
  Nova 
  Scotia 
  Dental 
  Board. 
  The 
  changes 
  would 
  allow 
  the 
  Board 
  to 
  place 
  restrictions 
  on 
  new 
  
entrants 
  to 
  the 
  profession, 
  ranging 
  from 
  orders 
  to 
  practice 
  under 
  supervision 
  for 
  a 
  period 
  of 
  time 
  
to 
  taking 
  additional 
  ethics 
  courses. 
  The 
  licensing 
  authority 
  admitted 
  that 
  the 
  changes 
  were 
  a 
  direct 
  
response 
  to 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group 
  controversy. 
  
The 
  Board 
  also 
  introduced 
  a 
  new 
  question 
  on 
  its 
  2015 
  application 
  form. 
  Potential 
  dentists 
  would 
  
be 
  required 
  to 
  answer 
  “yes” 
  or 
  “no” 
  to 
  the 
  following: 
  “While 
  you 
  were 
  engaged 
  in 
  academic 
  
studies 
  (undergraduate 
  and 
  post-­‐graduate), 
  were 
  you 
  ever 
  suspended 
  from 
  a 
  program 
  of 
  study, 
  
from 
  a 
  course, 
  or 
  from 
  any 
  course 
  activity 
  as 
  a 
  result 
  of 
  allegations 
  of 
  lack 
  of 
  competence, 
  
unprofessional 
  behaviour 
  or 
  misconduct 
  of 
  any 
  kind, 
  irrespective 
  of 
  whether 
  there 
  is 
  currently 
  a 
  
notation 
  of 
  such 
  misconduct 
  on 
  your 
  academic 
  transcript 
  from 
  the 
  academic 
  institution?” 
  The 
  
Board 
  did 
  not 
  consult 
  either 
  Dalhousie 
  administrators 
  or 
  faculty 
  about 
  the 
  proposed 
  changes. 
  The 
  
career 
  ramifications 
  for 
  the 
  Dalhousie 
  dental 
  students 
  remain 
  unclear. 
   
  

 
  

25 
    
  

 Chapter 
  3. 
  Perspectives 
  on 
  the 
  meaning 
  of 
  what 
  happened 
  
(a) 
  Interpretations 
  
Early 
  on 
  in 
  our 
  work, 
  we 
  were 
  struck 
  by 
  wide-­‐ranging, 
  often 
  conflicting 
  understanding 
  of 
  the 
  
events. 
  Understanding 
  was 
  far 
  more 
  varied 
  than 
  the 
  frequently 
  polar 
  division 
  of 
  opinion 
  over 
  
sexual 
  misconduct 
  against 
  women—one 
  view 
  considers 
  the 
  response 
  inadequate 
  to 
  the 
  gravity 
  of 
  
the 
  conduct 
  and 
  its 
  impact 
  on 
  the 
  victims, 
  and 
  the 
  other 
  view 
  considers 
  the 
  response 
  excessive 
  in 
  
light 
  of 
  the 
  presumed 
  intent 
  of 
  the 
  perpetrators. 
  
The 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  inspired 
  vigorous 
  debate 
  over 
  whether 
  the 
  remedy 
  lay 
  in 
  individualized 
  
punishments 
  or 
  systemic 
  change. 
  Those 
  who 
  took 
  the 
  position 
  that 
  an 
  effective 
  response 
  needed 
  
both 
  elements 
  did 
  not 
  agree 
  on 
  which 
  should 
  come 
  first. 
  Perspectives 
  differed 
  over 
  
interpretations 
  of 
  the 
  content 
  of 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  and 
  what 
  they 
  revealed 
  about 
  Dentistry, 
  as 
  
well 
  as 
  over 
  the 
  broader 
  implications 
  of 
  social 
  media 
  and 
  rape 
  culture. 
  We 
  also 
  heard 
  diverse 
  
views 
  about 
  the 
  University’s 
  response 
  and 
  what 
  it 
  said 
  about 
  the 
  University’s 
  capacity 
  to 
  deal 
  with 
  
such 
  matters. 
  
We 
  cannot 
  reproduce 
  here 
  all 
  that 
  we 
  heard. 
  Our 
  aim 
  is 
  to 
  set 
  out 
  the 
  great 
  range 
  of 
  
understanding 
  of 
  the 
  meaning 
  of 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts, 
  and 
  the 
  meaning 
  of 
  the 
  University’s 
  
response 
  to 
  them, 
  as 
  shared 
  with 
  us. 
   
  
Perspectives 
  about 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  
§ They 
  reveal 
  a 
  longstanding 
  male-­‐oriented 
  culture 
  in 
  Dentistry. 
  That 
  culture 
  includes 
  a 
  
history 
  of 
  demeaning 
  sexualized 
  treatment 
  of 
  women 
  by 
  faculty, 
  and 
  a 
  persistent 
  
refusal 
  to 
  respond 
  to 
  the 
  complaints 
  made 
  by 
  female 
  students. 
  The 
  posts 
  reflect 
  the 
  
male 
  students’ 
  assimilation 
  into 
  that 
  culture. 
  

 
  

§

They 
  are 
  the 
  product 
  of 
  interpersonal 
  conflicts 
  within 
  an 
  unusual 
  dentistry 
  class—
conflicts 
  that 
  had 
  grown 
  more 
  acrimonious 
  over 
  time 
  as 
  clinical 
  and 
  academic 
  
pressures 
  increased 
  in 
  fourth 
  year. 
  

§

They 
  are 
  only 
  the 
  most 
  visible 
  layer 
  of 
  deeply 
  entrenched 
  abuses 
  of 
  power 
  that 
  
pervade 
  the 
  whole 
  of 
  Dentistry, 
  including 
  its 
  administration, 
  the 
  operation 
  of 
  the 
  
Clinic, 
  employee 
  relations, 
  and 
  inter-­‐student 
  relationships. 
  

§

They 
  are 
  a 
  result 
  of 
  weak 
  leadership 
  within 
  Dentistry, 
  which 
  failed 
  to 
  respond 
  
appropriately 
  to 
  conflicts 
  and 
  stresses 
  within 
  the 
  fourth-­‐year 
  class 
  that 
  had 
  been 
  
evident 
  for 
  some 
  time. 
  

§

They 
  illustrate 
  a 
  culture 
  of 
  entitlement 
  and 
  a 
  “work 
  hard, 
  party 
  hard” 
  mentality 
  that 
  
is 
  reinforced 
  through 
  intense 
  competition 
  pervasive 
  within 
  all 
  dental 
  faculties. 
  

§

They 
  reveal 
  not 
  only 
  misogyny, 
  but 
  also 
  the 
  bullying 
  and 
  harassment 
  of 
  an 
  American 
  
minority 
  by 
  a 
  resentful 
  Canadian 
  majority. 
   
  

§

They 
  reflect 
  the 
  reality 
  and 
  pervasiveness 
  of 
  campus 
  rape 
  culture, 
  the 
  pornification 
  
culture 
  in 
  our 
  broader 
  society, 
  and 
  the 
  glorification 
  of 
  sexual 
  violence. 
  This 
  could 
  
26 
    
  

 have 
  happened 
  in 
  any 
  department 
  or 
  faculty 
  at 
  any 
  Canadian 
  university, 
  and 
  a 
  lot 
  of 
  
Facebook 
  groups 
  quietly 
  disappeared 
  after 
  the 
  story 
  hit 
  the 
  press. 
  
§

They 
  demonstrate 
  that 
  social 
  media 
  technology 
  has 
  deepened 
  the 
  disjunction 
  
between 
  “private” 
  and 
  “public” 
  such 
  that 
  people 
  conduct 
  themselves 
  on 
  social 
  
media 
  in 
  ways 
  they 
  would 
  never 
  contemplate 
  in 
  the 
  real 
  world. 
  

§

They 
  demonstrate 
  that 
  social 
  media 
  technology 
  allows 
  those 
  who 
  wish 
  to 
  reduce 
  
sexism, 
  misogyny, 
  and 
  homophobia 
  to 
  protest 
  more 
  effectively. 
  

Perspectives 
  about 
  the 
  University’s 
  response 
   
  
§ The 
  University’s 
  response 
  reveals 
  the 
  extent 
  to 
  which 
  the 
  University 
  will 
  go 
  to 
  
suppress 
  public 
  awareness 
  of 
  the 
  prevalence 
  of 
  sexualized 
  violence 
  on 
  campus 
  by 
  
pressuring 
  victims 
  to 
  agree 
  to 
  informal 
  and 
  confidential 
  processes 
  that 
  protect 
  
perpetrators 
  and 
  the 
  reputation 
  of 
  the 
  institution. 
  

 
  

§

The 
  University’s 
  response 
  reflects 
  the 
  University’s 
  concern 
  to 
  protect 
  the 
  female 
  
students, 
  which 
  it 
  did 
  by 
  providing 
  counselling 
  and 
  support 
  to 
  them, 
  suspending 
  the 
  
members 
  of 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group, 
  and 
  requiring 
  the 
  male 
  students 
  to 
  undergo 
  re-­‐
education 
  and 
  rehabilitation 
  through 
  a 
  restorative 
  justice 
  process. 
  

§

The 
  University’s 
  response 
  reflects 
  the 
  entrenched 
  hierarchy 
  of 
  power 
  within 
  the 
  
faculty. 
  The 
  male 
  posters 
  were 
  the 
  primary 
  focus 
  of 
  concern 
  and 
  communication. 
  
The 
  women 
  affected 
  were 
  given 
  much 
  less 
  attention 
  or 
  information 
  and 
  front-­‐line 
  
staff 
  and 
  patients 
  were 
  virtually 
  ignored. 
   
  

§

The 
  University’s 
  response 
  was 
  tainted 
  by 
  the 
  fact 
  that 
  it 
  had 
  been 
  remiss 
  in 
  failing 
  to 
  
be 
  pro-­‐active 
  in 
  the 
  face 
  of 
  long 
  standing 
  problems 
  in 
  dentistry, 
  which 
  it 
  should 
  have 
  
known 
  about 
  much 
  earlier. 
  

§

The 
  University 
  was 
  unfairly 
  targeted 
  for 
  failing 
  to 
  intervene 
  earlier. 
  The 
  authorities 
  
were 
  not 
  told 
  what 
  was 
  bothering 
  people, 
  and 
  their 
  many 
  efforts 
  to 
  resolve 
  earlier 
  
complaints 
  were 
  characterized 
  as 
  non-­‐existent. 
  Then, 
  confidentiality 
  rules 
  prevented 
  
the 
  University 
  from 
  defending 
  itself. 
  

§

The 
  University’s 
  response 
  reflects 
  and 
  reinforces 
  the 
  institutional 
  hierarchy, 
  in 
  which 
  
central 
  administration 
  uses 
  every 
  opportunity 
  to 
  increase 
  and 
  consolidate 
  its 
  power, 
  
eroding 
  important 
  checks 
  and 
  balances 
  in 
  the 
  form 
  of 
  the 
  Senate 
  and 
  individual 
  
voices 
  of 
  dissent. 
  

§

The 
  University’s 
  response 
  is 
  yet 
  another 
  instance 
  of 
  white 
  privilege. 
  Misogyny 
  
directed 
  at 
  white 
  professional 
  women 
  attracts 
  outrage 
  and 
  immediate 
  widespread 
  
response, 
  while 
  more 
  egregious 
  incidents 
  of 
  racism 
  continue 
  to 
  be 
  ignored. 
   
  

§

The 
  University’s 
  response 
  reveals 
  a 
  gap 
  in 
  existing 
  policies, 
  which 
  must 
  be 
  revised 
  to 
  
include 
  new 
  social 
  media 
  technologies. 
   
  

§

The 
  University 
  has 
  suitable 
  policies 
  and 
  procedures 
  that 
  could 
  have 
  fully 
  handled 
  this 
  
had 
  the 
  complaint 
  been 
  allowed 
  to 
  go 
  through 
  the 
  Senate 
  Disciplinary 
  Committee 
  via 
  
the 
  Code 
  of 
  Student 
  Conduct. 
  That 
  process 
  had 
  handled 
  a 
  host 
  of 
  serious 
  disputes 
  in 
  
previous 
  years 
  and 
  the 
  decisions 
  had 
  withstood 
  judicial 
  review 
  in 
  the 
  courts. 
  

27 
    
  

 §

The 
  University’s 
  response 
  demonstrates 
  the 
  pressing 
  need 
  for 
  anonymous 
  reporting 
  
mechanisms 
  so 
  that 
  victims 
  can 
  protest 
  such 
  conduct 
  without 
  putting 
  themselves 
  at 
  
risk. 
   
  

§

University 
  policies 
  do 
  allow 
  for 
  complainants 
  to 
  begin 
  the 
  process 
  of 
  informal 
  
complaints 
  without 
  publicly 
  identifying 
  themselves. 
  Many 
  complaints 
  with 
  the 
  
HREHP 
  office 
  have 
  no 
  names 
  of 
  complainants 
  on 
  the 
  file. 
   
  

§

The 
  University’s 
  response 
  highlights 
  the 
  fact 
  that 
  the 
  HREHP 
  office 
  has 
  outdated 
  
policies 
  and 
  a 
  predilection 
  for 
  pressuring 
  victims 
  into 
  informal, 
  behind-­‐the-­‐scenes 
  
reconciliation 
  of 
  discriminatory 
  treatment. 
  

§

The 
  University’s 
  response 
  highlights 
  the 
  fact 
  that 
  the 
  HREHP 
  office 
  is 
  an 
  under-­‐
resourced, 
  under-­‐staffed 
  tiny 
  basement 
  office 
  that 
  is 
  charged 
  with 
  an 
  impossible 
  
task: 
  to 
  fix 
  long-­‐standing 
  and 
  intractable 
  systemic 
  discrimination 
  across 
  an 
  entire 
  
campus, 
  for 
  students, 
  staff, 
  and 
  faculty. 
  

§

The 
  University’s 
  response 
  reveals 
  society’s 
  continued 
  ambivalence 
  toward 
  sexualized 
  
violence, 
  especially 
  when 
  perpetrated 
  by 
  privileged 
  men. 
  Instead 
  of 
  formal 
  
sanctions, 
  we 
  prefer 
  informal 
  responses 
  that 
  effectively 
  praise 
  and 
  empower 
  the 
  
men. 
   
  

§

The 
  restorative 
  justice 
  response 
  provided 
  a 
  ground-­‐breaking 
  window 
  of 
  opportunity 
  
for 
  those 
  involved 
  to 
  explore 
  and 
  address 
  the 
  societal 
  forces 
  that 
  give 
  rise 
  to 
  
misogyny, 
  in 
  a 
  safe 
  and 
  supported 
  forum, 
  which 
  allowed 
  them 
  and 
  others 
  in 
  
Dentistry 
  to 
  gain 
  lasting 
  understanding 
  and 
  make 
  meaningful 
  change 
  at 
  both 
  
individual 
  and 
  systemic 
  levels. 
  

§

The 
  University 
  selected 
  the 
  RJ 
  process 
  to 
  quell 
  media 
  scrutiny 
  and 
  sweep 
  the 
  
problem 
  under 
  the 
  rug. 
  

§

If 
  the 
  University 
  had 
  wanted 
  to 
  quell 
  the 
  media 
  scrutiny, 
  the 
  best 
  way 
  to 
  sweep 
  this 
  
under 
  the 
  rug 
  would 
  have 
  been 
  to 
  make 
  a 
  quick 
  and 
  punitive 
  decision 
  to 
  suspend 
  the 
  
students, 
  not 
  to 
  engage 
  in 
  an 
  RJ 
  process. 
  

§

The 
  Dalhousie 
  Student 
  Union 
  and 
  representatives 
  from 
  South 
  House 
  (the 
  
gender/sexuality 
  resource 
  centre 
  on 
  campus) 
  were 
  out 
  of 
  line 
  in 
  protesting 
  the 
  
University’s 
  decision 
  to 
  use 
  an 
  RJ 
  process. 
  They 
  did 
  not 
  represent 
  the 
  female 
  dental 
  
students 
  and 
  had 
  not 
  consulted 
  with 
  them. 
  

§

The 
  University 
  failed 
  to 
  draw 
  on 
  the 
  expertise 
  of 
  student 
  organizations 
  such 
  as 
  the 
  
Dalhousie 
  Student 
  Union 
  and 
  South 
  House, 
  which 
  have 
  experience 
  in 
  dealing 
  with 
  
sexual 
  violence, 
  sexism, 
  homophobia, 
  and 
  transphobia. 
  Such 
  bodies 
  are 
  under-­‐
resourced 
  and 
  require 
  more 
  support 
  and 
  respect 
  from 
  the 
  University. 
  

These 
  diverse 
  understandings 
  informed 
  our 
  own 
  analysis 
  of 
  the 
  posts 
  and 
  what 
  they 
  represent, 
  
and 
  our 
  conclusions 
  about 
  what 
  can 
  be 
  learned 
  from 
  the 
  University’s 
  response. 
  
The 
  array 
  of 
  views 
  shows 
  that, 
  like 
  other 
  universities, 
  Dalhousie 
  is 
  divided 
  on 
  equity-­‐related 
  issues. 
  
Progress 
  will 
  require 
  respect 
  for 
  all 
  perspectives 
  and 
  a 
  commitment 
  to 
  working 
  collaboratively 
  
over 
  differences. 
   
  

 
  

28 
    
  

 (b) 
  The 
  breadth 
  and 
  depth 
  of 
  harm 
  
Many 
  people 
  told 
  us 
  that 
  one 
  important 
  contribution 
  this 
  Task 
  Force 
  could 
  make 
  would 
  be 
  to 
  
acknowledge 
  the 
  breadth 
  and 
  depth 
  of 
  the 
  harm 
  arising 
  from 
  the 
  Facebook 
  incident. 
  We 
  agree. 
  
The 
  RJ 
  process 
  encouraged 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group 
  members 
  to 
  appreciate 
  and 
  reflect 
  on 
  the 
  harm 
  
they 
  had 
  caused 
  as 
  a 
  step 
  in 
  moving 
  forward. 
  We 
  think 
  that 
  similar 
  reflection 
  is 
  also 
  important 
  for 
  
those 
  who 
  are 
  responsible 
  for 
  responding 
  to 
  such 
  events. 
  We 
  describe 
  harm 
  as 
  shared 
  with 
  us, 
  
without 
  suggesting 
  that 
  some 
  types 
  of 
  harm 
  are 
  worse 
  than 
  others. 
  Our 
  aim 
  is 
  to 
  respectfully 
  
acknowledge 
  and 
  document 
  the 
  subjective 
  experiences 
  described 
  to 
  us 
  so 
  that 
  others 
  addressing 
  
similar 
  issues 
  may 
  gain 
  insight 
  into 
  their 
  impact. 
  
The 
  female 
  dentistry 
  students 
  identified 
  by 
  name 
  in 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  were 
  harmed 
  when 
  they 
  
learned 
  that 
  fellow 
  students, 
  with 
  whom 
  they 
  had 
  worked 
  and 
  socialized 
  for 
  more 
  than 
  three 
  
years, 
  had 
  objectified 
  and 
  sexualized 
  them. 
  They 
  had 
  to 
  continue 
  to 
  interact 
  with 
  both 
  identified 
  
and 
  non-­‐identified 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  for 
  the 
  remainder 
  of 
  their 
  studies. 
  Female 
  dentistry 
  students 
  
who 
  were 
  not 
  identified 
  by 
  name 
  were 
  similarly 
  harmed, 
  since 
  many 
  of 
  the 
  published 
  posts 
  
targeted 
  women 
  generally. 
  Families 
  and 
  friends 
  of 
  these 
  women 
  experienced 
  harm 
  as 
  they 
  
provided 
  support. 
  
Student 
  A, 
  the 
  woman 
  who 
  took 
  the 
  screenshot 
  of 
  the 
  hate-­‐fuck/sport-­‐fuck 
  post 
  and 
  made 
  a 
  
complaint 
  about 
  it, 
  suffered 
  harm 
  for 
  stepping 
  forward 
  to 
  call 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  to 
  account 
  for 
  
their 
  conduct. 
  She 
  was 
  the 
  subject 
  of 
  extended 
  speculation 
  about 
  her 
  character 
  and 
  motivations, 
  it 
  
was 
  widely 
  rumoured 
  that 
  she 
  disclosed 
  the 
  posts 
  to 
  the 
  media, 
  and 
  she 
  was 
  shunned 
  within 
  the 
  
school. 
   
  
Student 
  B, 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group 
  member 
  who 
  disclosed 
  the 
  hate-­‐fuck/sport-­‐fuck 
  post 
  to 
  Student 
  A, 
  
also 
  suffered 
  specific 
  individual 
  harm. 
  Like 
  Student 
  A, 
  he 
  felt 
  he 
  was 
  vilified 
  and 
  shunned 
  for 
  
stepping 
  forward. 
  He 
  was 
  publicly 
  identified 
  in 
  the 
  media. 
  He 
  was 
  found 
  guilty 
  of 
  professional 
  
misconduct 
  and 
  received 
  the 
  longest 
  suspension 
  of 
  anyone 
  connected 
  with 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group. 
  
The 
  other 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  also 
  experienced 
  harm, 
  including 
  shame, 
  humiliation, 
  and 
  threats 
  that 
  
their 
  names 
  would 
  be 
  publicly 
  disclosed. 
  All 
  of 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  were 
  suspended 
  from 
  the 
  
Clinic 
  for 
  at 
  least 
  two 
  months. 
  We 
  understand 
  that 
  they 
  face 
  uncertainty 
  over 
  whether 
  the 
  
profession’s 
  regulators 
  will 
  licence 
  them 
  to 
  practice. 
   
  
All 
  of 
  the 
  dental 
  students 
  endured 
  unwelcome 
  media 
  attention, 
  cancelled 
  exams, 
  Clinic 
  disruption, 
  
and 
  anxiety 
  and 
  fear 
  about 
  what 
  the 
  events 
  portended 
  for 
  their 
  class 
  and 
  their 
  futures. 
  Dentistry 
  
administrators 
  experienced 
  shame 
  about 
  conduct 
  within 
  the 
  faculty 
  for 
  which 
  they 
  were 
  
responsible. 
  The 
  professors 
  and 
  clinical 
  instructors 
  in 
  the 
  faculty 
  felt 
  demeaned 
  and 
  silenced. 
  The 
  
predominantly 
  female 
  staff 
  at 
  the 
  faculty 
  felt 
  overlooked 
  in 
  not 
  getting 
  timely 
  and 
  helpful 
  
information 
  about 
  what 
  was 
  going 
  on. 
  Clinical 
  staff 
  who 
  dealt 
  with 
  patients 
  about 
  the 
  closure 
  and 
  
reassignment 
  of 
  students 
  felt 
  that 
  they 
  bore 
  the 
  brunt 
  of 
  patients’ 
  irritation. 
  Some 
  experienced 
  
anxiety 
  about 
  having 
  to 
  work 
  with 
  the 
  students 
  after 
  the 
  suspensions 
  were 
  lifted. 
  Some 
  feared 
  
retaliation 
  and 
  threats 
  to 
  job 
  security 
  because 
  of 
  the 
  views 
  they 
  expressed. 
   
  

 
  

29 
    
  

 Some 
  patients 
  of 
  the 
  Clinic 
  experienced 
  treatment 
  disruptions 
  and 
  anxiety 
  about 
  who 
  might 
  treat 
  
them 
  or 
  their 
  children. 
   
  
Alumni 
  from 
  both 
  the 
  dental 
  hygiene 
  and 
  dentistry 
  programs 
  had 
  to 
  relive 
  memories 
  of 
  the 
  sexist 
  
treatment 
  they 
  experienced 
  as 
  students. 
  Alumni 
  dentists 
  suffered 
  embarrassment 
  when 
  people 
  
asked 
  whether 
  they 
  were 
  Dalhousie 
  graduates 
  and 
  questioned 
  them 
  about 
  what 
  had 
  gone 
  on 
  
while 
  they 
  were 
  at 
  the 
  dental 
  school. 
   
  
Almost 
  everyone 
  in 
  positions 
  of 
  authority, 
  including 
  University 
  administrators 
  and 
  others 
  who 
  
tried 
  to 
  respond 
  to 
  the 
  Facebook 
  incident 
  on 
  behalf 
  of 
  the 
  University, 
  endured 
  attacks 
  on 
  their 
  
efforts 
  and 
  damage 
  to 
  their 
  professional 
  reputations. 
  Elsewhere 
  in 
  the 
  Dalhousie 
  community, 
  
professors 
  and 
  students 
  who 
  were 
  openly 
  critical 
  of 
  aspects 
  of 
  the 
  University’s 
  response 
  were 
  also 
  
affected. 
  They 
  believed 
  that 
  the 
  University 
  resisted 
  their 
  efforts 
  to 
  assist 
  and 
  that 
  it 
   
  saw 
  them 
   
  as 
  
troublemakers, 
  and 
  they 
  felt 
  exposed 
  to 
  intimidation. 
  The 
  RJ 
  facilitators 
  perceived 
  that 
  their 
  
difficult 
  mission 
  was 
  under 
  constant 
  attack. 
  Members 
  of 
  racialized 
  and 
  LGBTQ 
  communities 
  in 
  
Dalhousie 
  felt 
  that 
  the 
  complexities 
  of 
  race 
  and 
  heterosexism 
  were 
  insufficiently 
  recognized. 
  
Disagreements 
  over 
  strategy, 
  magnified 
  by 
  the 
  intensity 
  of 
  the 
  crisis, 
  caused 
  rifts 
  in 
  personal 
  
relationships. 
   
  
Outside 
  Dalhousie, 
  leaders 
  in 
  the 
  women’s 
  community 
  worried 
  about 
  consequences 
  for 
  the 
  
province-­‐wide 
  moratorium 
  that 
  had 
  been 
  placed 
  on 
  using 
  RJ 
  in 
  cases 
  of 
  sexual 
  assault 
  and 
  
intimate 
  partner 
  violence 
  because 
  of 
  the 
  potential 
  to 
  re-­‐traumatize 
  victims 
  and 
  fail 
  the 
  
community. 
  A 
  survivor 
  of 
  child 
  sexual 
  abuse 
  described 
  how 
  the 
  media 
  coverage 
  of 
  the 
  Facebook 
  
posts 
  triggered 
  painful 
  memories 
  of 
  her 
  abuse 
  and 
  made 
  her 
  fearful 
  about 
  seeking 
  dental 
  services. 
  
Professional 
  dental 
  associations 
  worried 
  about 
  the 
  consequences 
  for 
  the 
  reputation 
  of 
  the 
  
profession. 
  
Many 
  people 
  who 
  described 
  the 
  harm 
  and 
  vulnerability 
  they 
  experienced 
  also 
  expressed 
  the 
  hope 
  
that 
  these 
  events 
  would 
  leave 
  a 
  legacy 
  on 
  which 
  to 
  build 
  and 
  improve. 
  Their 
  wish 
  to 
  “let 
  
something 
  good 
  come 
  out 
  of 
  all 
  of 
  this” 
  is 
  one 
  of 
  the 
  best 
  indicators 
  that, 
  despite 
  harm 
  touching 
  
the 
  whole 
  community, 
  there 
  is 
  a 
  strong 
  collective 
  will 
  to 
  encourage 
  forward 
  movement. 
  

 
  

30 
    
  

 Chapter 
  4. 
  Why 
  Did 
  This 
  Happen? 
  
(a) 
  The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
   
  
Programs 
  and 
  policies 
  
The 
  Dalhousie 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  has 
  been 
  training 
  students 
  for 
  over 
  100 
  years. 
  It 
  offers 
  two 
  
basic 
  programs 
  – 
  a 
  four-­‐year 
  Doctor 
  of 
  Dental 
  Surgery 
  degree 
  (DDS) 
  and 
  a 
  two-­‐year 
  Diploma 
  in 
  
Dental 
  Hygiene 
  (DDH). 
  It 
  also 
  offers 
  a 
  two-­‐year 
  “Qualifying 
  Program” 
  leading 
  to 
  the 
  DDS 
  degree 
  for 
  
foreign-­‐trained 
  dentists, 
  a 
  one-­‐year 
  Bachelor 
  of 
  Dental 
  Hygiene 
  program, 
  and 
  other 
  doctoral 
  and 
  
post-­‐doctoral 
  programs. 
  
The 
  DDS 
  program 
  admits 
  up 
  to 
  38 
  students 
  each 
  year, 
  drawing 
  students 
  from 
  within 
  Canada, 
  from 
  
the 
  United 
  States, 
  and 
  a 
  small 
  number 
  from 
  Kuwait. 
  About 
  half 
  of 
  the 
  students 
  are 
  women. 
  US 
  
students, 
  who 
  make 
  up 
  about 
  20 
  per 
  cent 
  of 
  the 
  class, 
  often 
  come 
  from 
  Maine 
  and 
  Utah 
  where 
  
the 
  dental 
  school 
  has 
  been 
  recruiting 
  for 
  several 
  years. 
  International 
  students 
  (including 
  those 
  
from 
  the 
  US), 
  pay 
  more 
  than 
  double 
  the 
  fees 
  paid 
  by 
  Canadian 
  students. 
  Students 
  in 
  the 
  Qualifying 
  
Program, 
  into 
  which 
  up 
  to 
  nine 
  students 
  are 
  admitted 
  each 
  year, 
  pay 
  fees 
  similar 
  to 
  those 
  paid 
  by 
  
international 
  students. 
  
A 
  key 
  part 
  of 
  the 
  DDS 
  program 
  is 
  the 
  clinical 
  component, 
  which 
  takes 
  up 
  essentially 
  the 
  whole 
  of 
  
the 
  last 
  two 
  years 
  of 
  the 
  program. 
  Faculty, 
  students 
  and 
  alumni 
  widely 
  share 
  the 
  view 
  that 
  this 
  
gives 
  students 
  an 
  excellent 
  background 
  in 
  practical 
  skills 
  to 
  help 
  them 
  pass 
  the 
  dental 
  “boards” 
  
and 
  enter 
  practice. 
  To 
  provide 
  students 
  with 
  this 
  hands-­‐on 
  clinical 
  experience, 
  the 
  school 
  operates 
  
the 
  Clinic, 
  a 
  substantial 
  dental 
  facility 
  in 
  the 
  dental 
  building, 
  and 
  also 
  operates 
  community 
  clinics 
  in 
  
Halifax 
  and 
  surrounding 
  areas. 
  
As 
  part 
  of 
  the 
  DDS 
  program, 
  the 
  dental 
  school 
  admits 
  dentists 
  already 
  qualified 
  in 
  a 
  foreign 
  
jurisdiction 
  who 
  wish 
  to 
  earn 
  a 
  Canadian 
  qualification. 
  The 
  Qualifying 
  Program 
  (QP) 
  accepts 
  such 
  
students 
  in 
  the 
  summer 
  before 
  third 
  year. 
  The 
  QP 
  students 
  then 
  complete 
  the 
  equivalent 
  of 
  third 
  
year. 
  In 
  classes, 
  they 
  are 
  with 
  the 
  other 
  third 
  year 
  students, 
  but 
  in 
  the 
  Clinic 
  they 
  are 
  separated 
  
from 
  them. 
  In 
  their 
  second 
  year, 
  they 
  are 
  integrated 
  into 
  the 
  fourth-­‐year 
  student 
  clusters 
  in 
  the 
  
Clinic. 
  
The 
  Dental 
  Hygiene 
  program 
  takes 
  in 
  about 
  40 
  students 
  a 
  year, 
  almost 
  all 
  of 
  them 
  women. 
  Part 
  of 
  
the 
  program 
  involves 
  clinical 
  experience. 
  They 
  share 
  the 
  clinical 
  and 
  general 
  school 
  facilities 
  with 
  
the 
  dental 
  students. 
  
As 
  of 
  January 
  2015, 
  there 
  were 
  40 
  full-­‐time 
  faculty 
  members 
  in 
  Dentistry, 
  33 
  per 
  cent 
  of 
  whom 
  
were 
  women. 
  However, 
  this 
  includes 
  the 
  six 
  full-­‐time 
  dental 
  hygiene 
  faculty 
  members, 
  all 
  of 
  whom 
  
are 
  women. 
  With 
  eight 
  women 
  and 
  23 
  men, 
  full-­‐time 
  female 
  faculty 
  representation 
  in 
  the 
  DDS 
  
program 
  is 
  closer 
  to 
  28 
  per 
  cent. 
  There 
  are 
  96 
  part-­‐time 
  faculty 
  members, 
  largely 
  teaching 
  in 
  the 
  
clinical 
  program, 
  of 
  whom 
  48 
  per 
  cent 
  are 
  women. 
  However, 
  some 
  clinical 
  instructors 
  teach 
  no 
  
more 
  than 
  half 
  a 
  day 
  per 
  week, 
  and 
  thus 
  we 
  were 
  unable 
  to 
  determine 
  how 
  much 
  clinical 
  

 
  

31 
    
  

 instruction 
  women 
  provide. 
  Students 
  told 
  us 
  that 
  their 
  clinic 
  experience 
  is 
  predominantly 
  with 
  
male 
  instructors. 
  We 
  were 
  not 
  given 
  data 
  on 
  racial 
  minorities 
  in 
  either 
  the 
  full-­‐time 
  or 
  part-­‐time 
  
faculty. 
  
Dentistry 
  has 
  a 
  dean 
  and 
  four 
  assistant 
  deans 
  (academic 
  affairs, 
  research, 
  student 
  services, 
  and 
  
clinical 
  affairs). 
  In 
  recent 
  years, 
  the 
  assistant 
  deans 
  for 
  research 
  and 
  student 
  affairs 
  have 
  been 
  
women. 
  
There 
  are 
  70 
  full-­‐time 
  staff 
  members 
  in 
  the 
  dental 
  school, 
  86 
  per 
  cent 
  of 
  whom 
  are 
  women. 
  Less 
  
than 
  two 
  per 
  cent 
  are 
  racial 
  minorities. 
  A 
  large 
  number 
  of 
  these 
  staff 
  members 
  are 
  involved 
  in 
  the 
  
management 
  and 
  operation 
  of 
  the 
  clinical 
  program, 
  including 
  admitting 
  patients 
  and 
  allocating 
  
them 
  to 
  students, 
  as 
  well 
  as 
  running 
  the 
  laboratories. 
  
In 
  their 
  first 
  year, 
  dentistry 
  students 
  primarily 
  take 
  courses 
  on 
  basic 
  dental 
  science. 
  Students 
  are 
  
introduced 
  to 
  patient 
  care 
  by 
  working 
  on 
  artificial 
  models 
  and 
  progress 
  to 
  humans 
  starting 
  with 
  
students 
  standing 
  in 
  for 
  patients. 
  From 
  their 
  second 
  year 
  on, 
  students 
  treat 
  real 
  patients 
  in 
  the 
  
Clinic, 
  and 
  in 
  third 
  and 
  fourth 
  years, 
  clinical 
  treatment 
  is 
  the 
  primary 
  focus 
  of 
  dental 
  education. 
  
Throughout 
  the 
  program, 
  students 
  attend 
  lectures 
  and 
  take 
  courses 
  on 
  ethics 
  and 
  professionalism. 
  
The 
  Patient 
  Assignment 
  Clerk 
  is 
  responsible 
  for 
  assigning 
  “patient 
  families” 
  to 
  each 
  student 
  so 
  that 
  
the 
  student 
  has 
  the 
  practice 
  opportunities 
  to 
  acquire 
  the 
  skills 
  to 
  meet 
  the 
  requirements 
  of 
  the 
  
“Competencies 
  for 
  a 
  Beginning 
  Dental 
  Practitioner 
  in 
  Canada.” 
  Students 
  manage 
  their 
  own 
  
patients’ 
  care, 
  including 
  appointment 
  scheduling, 
  and 
  perform 
  treatments 
  under 
  the 
  supervision 
  
of 
  clinical 
  instructors. 
  Student 
  progress 
  is 
  monitored 
  regularly 
  by 
  the 
  Patient 
  Assignment 
  Clerk, 
  
and 
  by 
  faculty 
  advisers 
  responsible 
  for 
  the 
  student 
  “clusters” 
  of 
  nine 
  students, 
  the 
  Assistant 
  Dean 
  
for 
  Clinical 
  Education, 
  and 
  the 
  Academic 
  Standards 
  Class 
  Committees 
  (ASCC). 
   
  
Student 
  conduct 
  and 
  professional 
  standards 
  
The 
  dental 
  school 
  has 
  its 
  own 
  Student 
  Code 
  of 
  Professional 
  Conduct, 
  dating 
  from 
  2003. 
  It 
  is 
  
“meant 
  to 
  embody 
  the 
  professional 
  values 
  of 
  dental 
  and 
  dental 
  hygiene 
  students 
  with 
  respect 
  to 
  
their 
  relationships 
  with 
  fellow 
  students, 
  patients, 
  faculty, 
  staff 
  and 
  Dalhousie 
  University.” 
  The 
  
Code 
  sets 
  out 
  specific 
  responsibilities 
  in 
  each 
  of 
  these 
  categories. 
  There 
  is 
  a 
  “white 
  coat” 
  
ceremony 
  for 
  first-­‐year 
  students, 
  in 
  which 
  they 
  recite 
  an 
  Oral 
  Health 
  Professional 
  Oath, 
  receive 
  
clinic 
  jackets, 
  and 
  sign 
  a 
  pledge 
  to 
  follow 
  the 
  Student 
  Code 
  of 
  Professional 
  Conduct. 
   
  
There 
  is 
  no 
  formal 
  student 
  complaints 
  process 
  in 
  the 
  dental 
  school. 
  We 
  were 
  told 
  that 
  some 
  
students 
  bring 
  complaints 
  to 
  the 
  Assistant 
  Dean 
  for 
  Academic 
  Affairs 
  or 
  the 
  Assistant 
  Dean 
  for 
  
Student 
  Affairs, 
  and 
  they 
  decide 
  how 
  to 
  deal 
  with 
  them. 
  The 
  Assistant 
  Dean 
  for 
  Academic 
  Affairs 
  
meets 
  twice 
  a 
  year 
  with 
  class 
  representatives, 
  partly 
  to 
  “intercept 
  any 
  major 
  problems 
  and 
  correct 
  
them 
  as 
  soon 
  as 
  possible.” 
  We 
  looked 
  at 
  the 
  minutes 
  of 
  these 
  meetings 
  for 
  2013-­‐2014 
  and 
  2014-­‐
2015, 
  and 
  clearly 
  they 
  do 
  provide 
  an 
  opportunity 
  for 
  students 
  to 
  raise 
  issues. 
  However, 
  students 
  
told 
  us 
  that 
  they 
  rarely 
  received 
  feedback 
  on 
  their 
  complaints. 
  Some 
  students 
  simply 
  elected 
  not 
  
to 
  take 
  this 
  opportunity 
  to 
  complain. 
  

 
  

32 
    
  

 For 
  academic 
  matters, 
  the 
  Main 
  Academic 
  Standards 
  Committee 
  establishes 
  panels 
  from 
  its 
  
membership 
  to 
  hear 
  appeals 
  on 
  student 
  grades 
  and 
  decisions 
  on 
  promotion 
  to 
  the 
  next 
  year, 
  
supplemental 
  exams, 
  and 
  “any 
  other 
  matter 
  related 
  to 
  student 
  academic 
  performance.” 
  ASCCs, 
  
established 
  for 
  each 
  year 
  of 
  the 
  DDS 
  program, 
  monitor 
  student 
  progress, 
  coordinate 
  the 
  
establishment 
  of 
  remedial 
  programs, 
  monitor 
  remedial 
  programs, 
  recommend 
  counselling 
  for 
  
students, 
  and 
  report 
  to 
  the 
  faculty 
  that 
  students 
  have 
  met 
  their 
  academic 
  requirements. 
  They 
  also 
  
“monitor 
  and 
  assess 
  student 
  professionalism, 
  knowledge, 
  pre-­‐clinical 
  skills 
  and 
  degree 
  of 
  
independence 
  and 
  competence 
  for 
  the 
  professions 
  of 
  dentistry/dental 
  hygiene.” 
  
Each 
  ASCC 
  is 
  composed 
  of 
  a 
  chair 
  appointed 
  by 
  the 
  Main 
  Academic 
  Standards 
  Committee 
  and 
  
faculty 
  members 
  who 
  are 
  the 
  course 
  directors 
  for 
  each 
  course 
  taught 
  in 
  the 
  curriculum. 
  
In 
  each 
  year, 
  dental 
  students 
  receive 
  instruction 
  on 
  ethical 
  matters 
  and 
  professionalism. 
  In 
  the 
  
course 
  material 
  we 
  examined, 
  the 
  main 
  professionalism 
  focus 
  was 
  on 
  patient 
  care 
  issues, 
  including 
  
informed 
  choice 
  and 
  confidentiality, 
  but 
  the 
  subjects 
  did 
  range 
  into 
  public 
  responsibility 
  of 
  
dentists 
  and 
  social 
  justice. 
  Students 
  learn 
  through 
  case 
  studies 
  rather 
  than 
  lectures, 
  which 
  affords 
  
more 
  potential 
  to 
  attract 
  student 
  interest. 
  However, 
  students 
  do 
  not 
  attach 
  the 
  importance 
  to 
  
these 
  courses 
  that 
  they 
  do 
  to 
  clinical 
  work. 
  
The 
  culture 
  
Two 
  images 
  of 
  the 
  dental 
  school 
  emerged 
  from 
  the 
  people 
  who 
  communicated 
  with 
  us. 
  Faculty, 
  
and 
  occasionally 
  students, 
  saw 
  the 
  dental 
  school 
  as 
  a 
  happy, 
  well-­‐functioning 
  place 
  with 
  no 
  
indication 
  of 
  misogyny 
  or 
  sexism. 
  In 
  this 
  view, 
  the 
  Facebook 
  incident 
  was 
  an 
  isolated, 
  totally 
  
unexpected 
  event 
  that 
  reflected 
  the 
  individuals 
  in 
  a 
  particular 
  year 
  and 
  not 
  the 
  dental 
  school 
  as 
  a 
  
whole. 
  A 
  senior 
  University 
  administrator 
  told 
  us 
  that 
  Dentistry 
  was 
  one 
  of 
  the 
  best-­‐run 
  faculties 
  in 
  
the 
  University. 
  It 
  was 
  all 
  “one 
  big 
  happy 
  family.” 
  Faculty 
  members 
  mentioned 
  no 
  examples 
  of 
  
homophobia 
  or 
  racism, 
  and 
  at 
  least 
  one 
  alumnus 
  said 
  he 
  had 
  not 
  had 
  any 
  negative 
  responses 
  to 
  
being 
  gay 
  and 
  out 
  while 
  at 
  the 
  dental 
  school. 
  This 
  view 
  was 
  often 
  echoed 
  in 
  communications 
  to 
  us 
  
from 
  alumni. 
  
Staff 
  and 
  many 
  students 
  had 
  a 
  different 
  view, 
  in 
  which 
  sexism, 
  misogyny, 
  racism, 
  and 
  homophobia 
  
were 
  present, 
  and 
  at 
  times 
  rampant, 
  in 
  the 
  school. 
  Staff 
  described 
  their 
  work 
  environment 
  as 
  
“abysmal,” 
  so 
  bad 
  that 
  many 
  staff 
  dreaded 
  coming 
  to 
  work 
  in 
  the 
  morning. 
   
  
Treatment 
  of 
  staff 
  
Staff 
  felt 
  belittled 
  and 
  treated 
  without 
  respect 
  in 
  ways 
  that 
  were 
  often 
  arbitrary 
  and 
  hurtful. 
  
Examples 
  included 
  having 
  to 
  put 
  a 
  sign 
  on 
  their 
  desks 
  when 
  they 
  went 
  to 
  the 
  washroom, 
  being 
  
watched 
  if 
  they 
  left 
  their 
  desk 
  for 
  no 
  obvious 
  reason, 
  not 
  getting 
  leave 
  for 
  things 
  like 
  a 
  child’s 
  
graduation 
  or 
  only 
  getting 
  leave 
  at 
  the 
  last 
  minute, 
  and 
  being 
  reprimanded 
  for 
  speaking 
  up 
  at 
  staff 
  
meetings. 
  If 
  they 
  asked 
  for 
  explanations, 
  they 
  were 
  told, 
  “because 
  I 
  said 
  so.” 
  
Some 
  faculty 
  members 
  said 
  the 
  relationship 
  with 
  staff 
  was 
  “appalling” 
  and 
  that 
  office 
  staff 
  were 
  
treated 
  like 
  property. 
  We 
  heard 
  that 
  some 
  faculty 
  members 
  spoke 
  to 
  staff 
  in 
  a 
  particular 
  tone 
  of 
  

 
  

33 
    
  

 voice, 
  and 
  that 
  female 
  staff 
  members 
  had 
  been 
  berated 
  for 
  their 
  makeup 
  or 
  had 
  to 
  listen 
  to 
  
“jokes” 
  about 
  menopause. 
  Staff 
  feared 
  what 
  would 
  happen 
  to 
  them 
  if 
  they 
  spoke 
  up. 
  Staff 
  
managers 
  were 
  bullies 
  and 
  the 
  school 
  was 
  a 
  “dictatorship.” 
  One 
  staff 
  member 
  said, 
  “I 
  live 
  in 
  terror 
  
every 
  day.” 
  Senior 
  faculty 
  administrators 
  were 
  compared 
  with 
  absentee 
  landlords 
  who 
  pay 
  little 
  
attention 
  to 
  what 
  is 
  happening 
  with 
  the 
  staff. 
  
The 
  University’s 
  Human 
  Resources 
  department 
  has 
  received 
  numerous 
  staff 
  complaints 
  over 
  the 
  
years. 
  HREHP 
  has 
  offered 
  training 
  programs 
  for 
  staff 
  and 
  was 
  well 
  aware 
  of 
  the 
  tensions 
  there. 
  The 
  
dental 
  school, 
  we 
  were 
  told, 
  is 
  not 
  the 
  open 
  and 
  friendly 
  place 
  it 
  claims 
  to 
  be. 
  Recently, 
  a 
  Human 
  
Resources 
  investigation 
  into 
  the 
  situation 
  at 
  the 
  dental 
  school 
  led 
  some 
  staff 
  members 
  to 
  hope 
  
that 
  things 
  would 
  improve. 
  As 
  a 
  result 
  of 
  that 
  investigation, 
  managers 
  received 
  more 
  support 
  and 
  
nothing 
  changed 
  for 
  staff. 
  Generally, 
  we 
  were 
  told, 
  staff 
  did 
  not 
  want 
  to 
  speak 
  out 
  because 
  they 
  
were 
  afraid 
  of 
  losing 
  their 
  jobs. 
  
After 
  the 
  Facebook 
  incident, 
  staff 
  were 
  given 
  confidentiality 
  agreements 
  to 
  sign, 
  ostensibly 
  to 
  
update 
  files. 
  Some 
  refused. 
  Eventually, 
  after 
  union 
  intervention, 
  the 
  matter 
  was 
  dropped. 
  We 
  
heard 
  that 
  coming 
  and 
  speaking 
  to 
  the 
  Task 
  Force 
  (for 
  which 
  some 
  were 
  told 
  they 
  had 
  to 
  take 
  
leave) 
  was 
  going 
  to 
  have 
  consequences 
  for 
  them 
  when 
  they 
  went 
  back. 
  The 
  treatment 
  of 
  staff 
  was 
  
described 
  to 
  us 
  generally 
  as 
  “punitive.” 
  
We 
  heard 
  about 
  examples 
  of 
  sexual 
  harassment 
  by 
  male 
  staff 
  members. 
  In 
  one 
  case, 
  it 
  was 
  
suggested 
  that 
  the 
  complainant 
  move 
  to 
  another 
  position 
  and 
  no 
  action 
  was 
  taken. 
  In 
  general, 
  we 
  
found 
  staff 
  morale 
  extremely 
  low, 
  and 
  very 
  few 
  thought 
  that 
  things 
  would 
  get 
  better. 
  
Faculty 
  behaviour 
  
Staff 
  and 
  students 
  both 
  told 
  us 
  of 
  sexist 
  comments 
  and 
  sexual 
  harassment 
  directed 
  to 
  female 
  
students 
  during 
  clinical 
  work. 
  Instructors 
  would 
  say 
  things 
  like 
  “she 
  is 
  hot” 
  or 
  “not 
  too 
  hard 
  to 
  look 
  
at” 
  about 
  female 
  students. 
  They 
  were 
  asked 
  when 
  they 
  would 
  be 
  having 
  children. 
  A 
  female 
  foreign 
  
student 
  was 
  asked 
  whether, 
  in 
  her 
  culture, 
  they 
  married 
  earlier 
  and 
  had 
  more 
  children, 
  and 
  was 
  
told 
  she 
  should 
  learn 
  more 
  about 
  pregnancy 
  and 
  gums. 
  Such 
  comments 
  were 
  often 
  made 
  in 
  front 
  
of 
  patients. 
  In 
  some 
  respects, 
  sexist 
  comments 
  had 
  become 
  normalized 
  and 
  went 
  unnoticed. 
   
  
We 
  heard 
  that 
  male 
  instructors 
  devoted 
  more 
  time 
  to 
  “pretty” 
  female 
  students. 
  A 
  former 
  
instructor 
  was 
  described 
  as 
  a 
  “nightmare” 
  in 
  this 
  regard. 
  There 
  were 
  rumours 
  of 
  sexual 
  
relationships 
  between 
  some 
  male 
  instructors 
  and 
  female 
  students. 
  The 
  University 
  confirmed 
  that, 
  
two 
  years 
  earlier, 
  a 
  faculty 
  member 
  in 
  the 
  dental 
  school 
  was 
  terminated 
  for 
  cause 
  because 
  of 
  
sexual 
  relationships 
  with 
  two 
  female 
  students. 
  Students 
  told 
  us 
  that 
  they 
  received 
  little 
  
information 
  about 
  this 
  incident 
  and 
  what 
  they 
  did 
  know 
  appeared 
  to 
  be 
  based 
  on 
  rumour. 
  A 
  
faculty 
  member 
  met 
  with 
  students 
  to 
  talk 
  about 
  sexual 
  harassment, 
  without 
  specifically 
  referring 
  
to 
  the 
  incident. 
  The 
  students 
  did 
  not 
  appear 
  to 
  take 
  the 
  talk 
  very 
  seriously. 
  
Numerous 
  examples 
  emerged 
  where 
  faculty 
  members 
  made 
  crude 
  and 
  offensive 
  comments. 
  A 
  
staff 
  member 
  complained 
  when 
  a 
  faculty 
  member 
  told 
  her 
  that 
  things 
  had 
  changed 
  in 
  the 
  dental 
  
school: 
  “You 
  can’t 
  have 
  oral 
  sex 
  with 
  students 
  anymore,” 
  he 
  said. 
  The 
  staff 
  member 
  never 
  heard 
  

 
  

34 
    
  

 whether 
  anything 
  was 
  done 
  about 
  her 
  complaint. 
  A 
  number 
  of 
  female 
  students 
  had 
  apparently 
  
requested 
  that 
  they 
  not 
  be 
  supervised 
  by 
  him. 
  Another 
  faculty 
  member 
  displayed 
  a 
  picture 
  in 
  class 
  
of 
  one 
  of 
  the 
  students 
  in 
  the 
  class 
  in 
  a 
  bikini 
  and 
  made 
  a 
  reference 
  to 
  the 
  colour 
  of 
  her 
  underwear. 
  
Yet 
  another 
  is 
  known 
  for 
  derogatory 
  comments 
  like 
  “she’s 
  a 
  woman, 
  she 
  doesn’t 
  know.” 
  One 
  told 
  
a 
  female 
  junior 
  colleague 
  that 
  he 
  would 
  not 
  mind 
  having 
  an 
  affair 
  with 
  her. 
  She 
  was 
  untenured 
  
and 
  felt 
  she 
  could 
  not 
  complain. 
  Another 
  is 
  widely 
  known 
  for 
  looking 
  at 
  women’s 
  breasts, 
  not 
  their 
  
faces. 
  
Where 
  some 
  saw 
  sexism, 
  others 
  saw 
  female 
  students 
  “coming 
  on” 
  to 
  male 
  instructors 
  to 
  get 
  
preferential 
  treatment. 
  However, 
  some 
  female 
  students 
  resented 
  instructors 
  who 
  wanted 
  to 
  
devote 
  more 
  time 
  to 
  them 
  or 
  take 
  over 
  patient 
  treatments 
  for 
  them. 
  There 
  was 
  a 
  pervasive 
  belief 
  
that 
  complaints 
  would 
  be 
  ineffective, 
  and 
  that 
  has 
  resulted 
  in 
  a 
  culture 
  of 
  not 
  complaining. 
   
  
Patients 
  are 
  also 
  known 
  to 
  make 
  sexist 
  or 
  racist 
  comments 
  from 
  time 
  to 
  time. 
  Patients 
  who 
  
request 
  treatment 
  by 
  white 
  students 
  only 
  are 
  accommodated, 
  and 
  patients 
  and 
  students 
  are 
  
sometimes 
  matched 
  on 
  the 
  basis 
  of 
  common 
  ethnicity. 
  Staff 
  members 
  who 
  have 
  raised 
  this 
  with 
  
faculty 
  members 
  have 
  been 
  told 
  that 
  they 
  run 
  the 
  risk 
  of 
  being 
  seen 
  as 
  troublemakers. 
  Complaints 
  
about 
  a 
  professor 
  who 
  made 
  racist 
  comments 
  to 
  a 
  patient 
  were 
  brushed 
  aside 
  by 
  senior 
  faculty 
  on 
  
the 
  grounds 
  that 
  the 
  individual 
  “was 
  from 
  the 
  south.” 
   
  
Based 
  on 
  what 
  we 
  heard, 
  there 
  seems 
  to 
  be 
  a 
  culture 
  of 
  intimidation 
  and 
  humiliation 
  in 
  the 
  Clinic. 
  
We 
  were 
  told 
  that 
  instructors 
  commonly 
  reprimand 
  or 
  belittle 
  students 
  in 
  front 
  of 
  patients 
  and 
  
some 
  have 
  a 
  reputation 
  for 
  making 
  female 
  students 
  cry. 
  
Competition 
  and 
  preferential 
  treatment 
  
The 
  students 
  compete 
  with 
  one 
  another 
  in 
  the 
  Clinic, 
  partly 
  because 
  of 
  how 
  patients 
  are 
  allocated. 
  
The 
  allocation 
  system 
  is 
  a 
  source 
  of 
  irritation 
  and 
  concern 
  for 
  students, 
  and 
  this 
  seems 
  to 
  be 
  of 
  
long 
  standing 
  since 
  we 
  heard 
  similar 
  accounts 
  from 
  alumni. 
  One 
  person 
  makes 
  all 
  allocations 
  and 
  
there 
  is 
  little 
  opportunity 
  to 
  complain, 
  especially 
  since 
  many 
  believe 
  that 
  it 
  would 
  have 
  
repercussions. 
  We 
  were 
  also 
  told 
  that 
  some 
  students 
  have 
  been 
  able 
  to 
  manipulate 
  the 
  computer 
  
system 
  to 
  get 
  better 
  allocations. 
  Students 
  hoard 
  both 
  patients 
  and 
  materials 
  with 
  varying 
  degrees 
  
of 
  success. 
  Some 
  complete 
  more 
  procedures 
  than 
  they 
  need 
  to 
  graduate 
  while 
  others 
  have 
  
difficulty 
  doing 
  enough. 
  
There 
  is 
  also 
  competition 
  for 
  time 
  with 
  instructors, 
  made 
  worse 
  because 
  of 
  the 
  sense 
  that 
  some 
  
instructors 
  give 
  more 
  time 
  to 
  students 
  they 
  like, 
  male 
  and 
  female. 
  There 
  is 
  also 
  male 
  bonding 
  over 
  
matters 
  such 
  as 
  golf, 
  from 
  which 
  women 
  and 
  some 
  men 
  are 
  excluded. 
  Students 
  from 
  families 
  in 
  
the 
  dental 
  profession 
  and 
  those 
  whose 
  parents 
  are 
  alumni 
  are 
  also 
  said 
  to 
  get 
  preferential 
  
treatment. 
  
Overall, 
  we 
  were 
  told, 
  an 
  atmosphere 
  of 
  paternalism 
  pervades 
  the 
  Clinic 
  and 
  the 
  dental 
  school 
  as 
  
a 
  whole. 
  

 
  

35 
    
  

 The 
  feeling 
  that 
  some 
  students 
  get 
  preferential 
  treatment 
  in 
  the 
  Clinic 
  contributes 
  to 
  unhealthy 
  
competitiveness 
  among 
  the 
  students. 
  Making 
  matters 
  worse, 
  a 
  student 
  who 
  does 
  almost 
  all 
  of 
  the 
  
work 
  on 
  a 
  procedure, 
  but 
  through 
  no 
  fault 
  of 
  his/her 
  own 
  does 
  not 
  finish 
  it, 
  gets 
  no 
  credit. 
  In 
  such 
  
a 
  system, 
  patient 
  hoarding 
  and 
  an 
  unwillingness 
  to 
  collaborate 
  seem 
  to 
  make 
  sense. 
   
  
Some 
  students 
  believe 
  that 
  preferential 
  treatment 
  is 
  based 
  on 
  fees, 
  with 
  American 
  students 
  
treated 
  better 
  because 
  they 
  pay 
  more. 
  We 
  heard 
  that 
  American 
  students 
  are 
  met 
  at 
  the 
  airport 
  
when 
  they 
  arrive 
  in 
  Halifax. 
  Members 
  of 
  the 
  dental 
  faculty 
  go 
  to 
  the 
  US 
  to 
  interview 
  prospective 
  
students, 
  but 
  Canadian 
  students 
  have 
  to 
  pay 
  their 
  own 
  way 
  to 
  Halifax 
  for 
  an 
  interview. 
   
  
If 
  that 
  is 
  true, 
  then 
  preferential 
  treatment 
  is 
  not 
  consistent. 
  Staff 
  have 
  been 
  told 
  to 
  “hug 
  a 
  QP 
  
(Qualifying 
  Program 
  student)” 
  because 
  their 
  higher 
  fees 
  help 
  fund 
  the 
  dental 
  school. 
  At 
  the 
  same 
  
time, 
  it 
  is 
  widely 
  recognized 
  that 
  QP 
  students, 
  many 
  of 
  whom 
  are 
  from 
  racialized 
  groups, 
  are 
  
treated 
  worse 
  than 
  other 
  students 
  despite 
  paying 
  higher 
  fees. 
  QP 
  students’ 
  work 
  is 
  assessed 
  more 
  
critically 
  and 
  they 
  get 
  lower 
  priority 
  in 
  clinical 
  instruction. 
  Instructors 
  often 
  ignore 
  them 
  or 
  give 
  
them 
  less 
  attention. 
  They 
  have 
  more 
  difficulty 
  in 
  getting 
  patients 
  allocated 
  to 
  enable 
  them 
  to 
  
complete 
  the 
  required 
  treatments, 
  and 
  the 
  Clinic 
  rules 
  are 
  enforced 
  more 
  stringently 
  for 
  them. 
  
Until 
  recently, 
  QP 
  students 
  did 
  not 
  graduate 
  with 
  the 
  other 
  dental 
  students 
  and 
  had 
  a 
  separate 
  
ceremony. 
  QP 
  students 
  generally 
  do 
  not 
  complain 
  about 
  their 
  treatment, 
  they 
  simply 
  knuckle 
  
down 
  and 
  try 
  to 
  get 
  through. 
  They 
  believe 
  that 
  if 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group 
  had 
  been 
  QP 
  students, 
  they 
  
would 
  have 
  been 
  dismissed 
  from 
  the 
  school 
  immediately. 
  
The 
  Dental 
  Hygiene 
  program 
  is 
  another 
  facet 
  of 
  the 
  student 
  hierarchy. 
  Formally, 
  the 
  Dental 
  
Hygiene 
  and 
  DDS 
  faculties 
  cooperate 
  well. 
  An 
  external 
  review 
  of 
  the 
  dental 
  school 
  in 
  2010 
  found 
  
that 
  the 
  relationship 
  between 
  the 
  dentistry 
  and 
  dental 
  hygiene 
  programs 
  was 
  very 
  good, 
  and 
  that 
  
it 
  was 
  becoming 
  one 
  program 
  instead 
  of 
  two 
  programs 
  housed 
  in 
  the 
  same 
  building. 
  This 
  seems 
  to 
  
be 
  an 
  overly 
  rosy 
  picture. 
   
  
The 
  gap 
  between 
  dentists 
  and 
  dental 
  hygienists 
  is 
  well 
  known. 
  Some 
  believe 
  that 
  dental 
  students 
  
learn 
  a 
  “culture 
  of 
  entitlement” 
  in 
  dental 
  school, 
  particularly 
  in 
  fourth 
  year. 
  Working 
  together 
  in 
  
the 
  Clinic 
  may 
  seem 
  to 
  be 
  an 
  opportunity 
  for 
  the 
  two 
  sets 
  of 
  students 
  to 
  reduce 
  that 
  gap, 
  but 
  
instead, 
  in 
  recent 
  years 
  dental 
  students 
  have 
  even 
  sought 
  to 
  exclude 
  dental 
  hygiene 
  students 
  from 
  
the 
  student 
  common 
  room. 
  
In 
  the 
  Clinic, 
  the 
  needs 
  of 
  dental 
  students 
  have 
  higher 
  priority 
  and 
  dental 
  hygiene 
  students 
  are 
  
finding 
  it 
  increasingly 
  difficult 
  to 
  complete 
  their 
  clinical 
  requirements. 
  This 
  year, 
  forced 
  to 
  make 
  
way 
  for 
  the 
  suspended 
  dental 
  students 
  on 
  their 
  return, 
  we 
  were 
  told 
  that 
  some 
  dental 
  hygiene 
  
students 
  were 
  unable 
  to 
  meet 
  their 
  clinical 
  requirements. 
  An 
  impasse 
  with 
  Clinic 
  management 
  led 
  
the 
  dental 
  hygiene 
  students 
  to 
  petition 
  the 
  dental 
  school 
  administration. 
  The 
  matter 
  has 
  yet 
  to 
  be 
  
resolved. 
   
  
We 
  also 
  heard 
  students’ 
  concerns 
  about 
  the 
  lack 
  of 
  avenues 
  for 
  lodging 
  complaints. 
  Students 
  who 
  
had 
  made 
  complaints 
  said 
  that 
  they 
  had 
  never 
  heard 
  anything 
  further 
  and 
  did 
  not 
  know 
  whether 
  
anything 
  had 
  been 
  done. 
  This 
  has 
  led 
  to 
  reluctance 
  to 
  complain. 
  Previously 
  female 
  students 
  who 
  

 
  

36 
    
  

 preferred 
  not 
  to 
  complain 
  to 
  a 
  male 
  administrator 
  about 
  sexual 
  harassment 
  were 
  told 
  that 
  they 
  
could 
  speak 
  to 
  a 
  secretary. 
  
The 
  school 
  now 
  has 
  female 
  assistant 
  deans 
  for 
  student 
  affairs 
  and 
  research. 
  We 
  heard 
  that 
  female 
  
students 
  were 
  comfortable 
  speaking 
  to 
  both 
  of 
  them 
  and 
  that 
  they 
  were 
  a 
  great 
  help 
  during 
  the 
  
Facebook 
  group 
  crisis. 
  However, 
  we 
  also 
  heard 
  that 
  students 
  experience 
  Dentistry 
  as 
  male 
  
dominant. 
   
  
Time 
  warp 
  
Does 
  what 
  we 
  heard 
  reflect 
  the 
  school 
  as 
  it 
  really 
  is? 
  Some 
  people 
  see 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group 
  
incident 
  as 
  an 
  example 
  of 
  bad 
  apples 
  that 
  do 
  not 
  spoil 
  the 
  bunch. 
  It 
  was 
  an 
  atypical 
  year, 
  with 
  a 
  
combination 
  of 
  personalities 
  that, 
  unlike 
  most 
  classes, 
  did 
  not 
  get 
  along. 
  Given 
  what 
  we 
  observed, 
  
the 
  Task 
  Force 
  is 
  not 
  inclined 
  to 
  accept 
  that 
  view. 
   
  
We 
  heard 
  similar 
  concerns 
  about 
  the 
  culture 
  in 
  the 
  school 
  from 
  DDS 
  2015 
  students, 
  students 
  in 
  
other 
  years, 
  and 
  QP 
  students. 
  Similar 
  comments 
  are 
  found 
  in 
  the 
  Curriculum 
  Quality 
  Student 
  Exit 
  
Survey 
  for 
  2014. 
  We 
  also 
  heard 
  about 
  a 
  sexist 
  culture 
  from 
  women 
  who 
  graduated 
  many 
  years 
  
ago. 
  The 
  women 
  were 
  aware 
  of 
  it 
  but 
  tried 
  to 
  ignore 
  it 
  or 
  work 
  around 
  it. 
  We 
  heard 
  that 
  in 
  the 
  
1980s, 
  the 
  dental 
  school 
  administration 
  received 
  complaints 
  about 
  faculty 
  showing 
  inappropriate 
  
and 
  offensive 
  images 
  in 
  lectures. 
  For 
  many 
  alumni, 
  25 
  years 
  later, 
  it 
  was 
  extremely 
  disappointing 
  
to 
  hear 
  that 
  the 
  same 
  sort 
  of 
  thing 
  was 
  still 
  going 
  on. 
  
Records 
  show 
  that 
  staff 
  complaints 
  to 
  Human 
  Resources 
  have 
  been 
  going 
  on 
  for 
  years. 
  A 
  wide 
  
array 
  of 
  individuals 
  shared 
  consistent 
  concerns 
  with 
  us 
  on 
  this. 
  
The 
  graffiti 
  in 
  the 
  room 
  behind 
  the 
  bar 
  in 
  the 
  student 
  common 
  room 
  known 
  as 
  the 
  “Cavity” 
  was 
  
there 
  for 
  many 
  years. 
  The 
  walls 
  have 
  been 
  painted 
  over 
  in 
  the 
  last 
  few 
  weeks, 
  but 
  we 
  saw 
  the 
  
many 
  offensive 
  scribbles. 
  The 
  faculty 
  members’ 
  attitude 
  was 
  puzzling. 
  They 
  were 
  not 
  aware 
  of 
  the 
  
graffiti, 
  or 
  they 
  had 
  heard 
  of 
  it 
  but 
  not 
  seen 
  it, 
  or 
  they 
  never 
  went 
  to 
  the 
  student 
  lounge. 
  And 
  yet, 
  
many 
  were 
  students 
  while 
  the 
  wall 
  was 
  being 
  “decorated.” 
  Not 
  one 
  faculty 
  member 
  told 
  us 
  that 
  
the 
  graffiti 
  was 
  a 
  disgrace 
  and 
  embarrassment 
  and 
  should 
  have 
  been 
  dealt 
  with 
  years 
  ago. 
  Why 
  
had 
  something 
  that 
  might 
  have 
  been 
  found 
  in 
  a 
  grimy 
  men’s 
  washroom 
  50 
  years 
  ago 
  been 
  
tolerated 
  in 
  Dentistry—and 
  how 
  could 
  it 
  have 
  lasted 
  so 
  long? 
  
One 
  possible 
  answer 
  is 
  that 
  the 
  dental 
  school 
  has 
  been 
  oblivious 
  to 
  changing 
  mores, 
  to 
  how 
  
respect 
  for 
  women 
  should 
  be 
  expressed 
  in 
  the 
  21st 
  Century, 
  and 
  to 
  behaviour 
  that 
  is 
  no 
  longer 
  
considered 
  acceptable. 
  An 
  alumnus 
  told 
  us 
  that 
  Dentistry 
  is 
  in 
  a 
  “time 
  warp.” 
  
We 
  suggest 
  no 
  direct 
  causal 
  link 
  between 
  the 
  culture 
  in 
  the 
  dental 
  school 
  and 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts. 
  
Nevertheless, 
  the 
  attitudes 
  reflected 
  in 
  the 
  posts 
  did 
  emerge 
  and 
  thrive 
  against 
  the 
  backdrop 
  of 
  
that 
  culture 
  in 
  at 
  least 
  three 
  important 
  ways. 
   
  
First, 
  competitiveness 
  has 
  evolved 
  to 
  an 
  unhealthy 
  and 
  destructive 
  level, 
  well 
  beyond 
  what 
  might 
  
be 
  reasonable 
  in 
  a 
  program 
  to 
  train 
  professionals. 
  Some 
  students 
  were 
  privileged; 
  others 
  were 
  

 
  

37 
    
  

 marginalized. 
  There 
  was 
  hostility 
  towards 
  professors 
  and 
  hostility 
  towards 
  students 
  who 
  were 
  
perceived 
  to 
  be 
  getting 
  preferential 
  treatment. 
  In 
  particular, 
  the 
  criteria 
  for 
  completing 
  clinical 
  
requirements 
  were 
  seen 
  to 
  be 
  neither 
  clear 
  nor 
  fairly 
  applied. 
  In 
  such 
  circumstances, 
  student 
  
reactions 
  may 
  be 
  unpredictable 
  or 
  even 
  incoherent. 
   
  
Second, 
  the 
  students 
  heard 
  sexist 
  comments 
  from 
  their 
  role 
  models 
  and 
  repeated 
  them 
  among 
  
themselves. 
  We 
  were 
  told 
  that 
  some 
  male 
  students 
  talked 
  openly 
  in 
  person 
  about 
  which 
  female 
  
students 
  they 
  would 
  like 
  to 
  have 
  sex 
  with. 
  What 
  was 
  commonplace 
  in 
  the 
  school 
  environment 
  
seemed 
  all 
  the 
  more 
  acceptable 
  in 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group, 
  although 
  the 
  posts 
  went 
  well 
  beyond 
  what 
  
we 
  heard 
  was 
  common 
  in 
  the 
  Clinic. 
   
  
Third, 
  the 
  school 
  environment 
  included 
  the 
  graffiti, 
  whose 
  images 
  were 
  just 
  as 
  offensive 
  as 
  those 
  
in 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts. 
  Yet, 
  while 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  were 
  suspended 
  for 
  unprofessional 
  
behaviour, 
  the 
  graffiti 
  seemed 
  to 
  enjoy 
  iconic 
  status. 
  
Professionalism 
  and 
  ethics 
  
Some 
  of 
  the 
  reaction 
  to 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  focused 
  on 
  the 
  posters 
  as 
  students 
  in 
  a 
  professional 
  
school 
  and 
  their 
  behaviour 
  as 
  the 
  antithesis 
  of 
  professional 
  conduct. 
  Eventually, 
  those 
  students 
  
were 
  dealt 
  with 
  by 
  the 
  ASCC, 
  the 
  body 
  that 
  deals 
  with 
  professionalism 
  issues. 
  
The 
  dental 
  school 
  clearly 
  sees 
  professionalism 
  as 
  an 
  essential 
  part 
  of 
  dental 
  training. 
  The 
  white 
  
coat 
  ceremony 
  for 
  first-­‐year 
  students 
  is 
  an 
  attempt 
  to 
  impress 
  their 
  professional 
  obligations 
  on 
  the 
  
future 
  dentists, 
  although 
  some 
  think 
  that 
  it 
  happens 
  too 
  early 
  in 
  the 
  training 
  to 
  have 
  a 
  real 
  impact. 
  
Courses 
  on 
  professionalism 
  and 
  ethics 
  are 
  taught 
  throughout 
  the 
  program. 
   
  
From 
  what 
  we 
  heard, 
  they 
  are 
  good 
  courses, 
  taught 
  through 
  engaging 
  case 
  studies. 
  But 
  the 
  
educational 
  core 
  of 
  the 
  DDS 
  program 
  is 
  strongly 
  clinical 
  and 
  technical. 
  The 
  professionalism 
  courses 
  
do 
  focus 
  on 
  issues 
  students 
  will 
  see 
  in 
  practice, 
  but 
  they 
  are 
  taught 
  separately 
  and 
  do 
  not 
  seem 
  to 
  
be 
  integrated 
  with 
  clinical 
  work. 
  Exploring 
  issues 
  like 
  sexism 
  as 
  part 
  of 
  a 
  clinical 
  program 
  has 
  the 
  
potential 
  to 
  create 
  greater 
  awareness 
  of 
  professionalism 
  and 
  ethics 
  in 
  daily 
  life. 
   
  
Some 
  students 
  see 
  professionalism 
  as 
  a 
  “nine 
  to 
  five” 
  issue, 
  not 
  part 
  of 
  their 
  private 
  lives. 
  Dental 
  
students 
  tend 
  not 
  to 
  have 
  a 
  background 
  the 
  humanities, 
  and 
  teaching 
  critical 
  thinking 
  beyond 
  
clinical 
  skills 
  is 
  apparently 
  not 
  common 
  in 
  dental 
  schools. 
   
  
Unlike 
  other 
  disciplines, 
  including 
  professional 
  fields, 
  dentistry 
  does 
  not 
  include 
  the 
  study 
  of 
  
related 
  gender 
  and 
  race 
  issues. 
  There 
  has 
  been 
  research 
  into 
  professionalism, 
  but 
  some 
  faculty 
  
members 
  would 
  like 
  to 
  see 
  engagement 
  in 
  more 
  fundamental 
  questions 
  about 
  dentistry, 
  dental 
  
students, 
  and 
  dental 
  education 
  in 
  the 
  context 
  of 
  broader 
  society. 
  Faculty 
  members 
  who 
  do 
  
research 
  in 
  and 
  teach 
  ethics 
  and 
  professionalism 
  expressed 
  some 
  frustration 
  with 
  the 
  limited 
  
scope 
  of 
  the 
  present 
  curriculum. 
  

 
  

38 
    
  

 (b) 
  Dalhousie 
  University 
  
The 
  Task 
  Force 
  was 
  mandated 
  to 
  examine 
  the 
  situation 
  in 
  Dentistry, 
  but 
  many 
  of 
  the 
  people 
  who 
  
spoke 
  to 
  us 
  insisted 
  that 
  Dentistry 
  did 
  not 
  stand 
  entirely 
  apart 
  from 
  the 
  University 
  as 
  a 
  whole. 
  Was 
  
there 
  was 
  something 
  about 
  Dalhousie 
  University 
  that 
  gave 
  rise 
  to 
  the 
  Facebook 
  scandal, 
  some 
  
underlying 
  culture 
  that 
  condoned 
  discrimination? 
  We 
  heard 
  from 
  a 
  number 
  of 
  faculty 
  members, 
  
staff, 
  and 
  students 
  that 
  sexism, 
  homophobia, 
  transphobia, 
  racism, 
  and 
  disability 
  discrimination 
  are 
  
all 
  found 
  at 
  Dalhousie. 
  They 
  described 
  the 
  University 
  as 
  a 
  traditional 
  hierarchical 
  institution 
  with 
  
long-­‐standing 
  patterns 
  of 
  inertia, 
  and 
  a 
  reputation 
  for 
  failing 
  to 
  deal 
  with 
  complaints. 
  Some 
  
suggested 
  reluctance 
  to 
  complain 
  might 
  also 
  relate 
  to 
  the 
  Maritime 
  civility 
  in 
  Nova 
  Scotia, 
  where 
  
according 
  to 
  social 
  norms, 
  it 
  is 
  unseemly 
  to 
  create 
  confrontation 
  or 
  rock 
  the 
  boat. 
  Cynicism, 
  
paranoia, 
  and 
  distrust 
  were 
  said 
  to 
  have 
  built 
  up 
  over 
  decades 
  of 
  seeing 
  complainants 
  targeted 
  as 
  
trouble-­‐makers 
  and 
  watching 
  problems 
  get 
  swept 
  under 
  the 
  rug. 
  
The 
  appointment 
  of 
  a 
  new 
  president 
  from 
  outside 
  Dalhousie 
  raised 
  hopes 
  that 
  here 
  was 
  someone 
  
who 
  might 
  have 
  a 
  chance 
  at 
  transforming 
  the 
  culture. 
  Others 
  were 
  less 
  optimistic, 
  lamenting 
  the 
  
sluggish 
  pace 
  of 
  change 
  in 
  academic 
  institutions, 
  hampered 
  by 
  complex, 
  unwieldy 
  structures 
  and 
  
dwindling 
  resources. 
   
  
Some 
  people 
  questioned 
  whether 
  the 
  University 
  should 
  have 
  been 
  more 
  alert 
  to 
  the 
  simmering 
  
problems 
  in 
  Dentistry 
  at 
  an 
  earlier 
  stage, 
  when 
  it 
  might 
  have 
  been 
  possible 
  to 
  resolve 
  the 
  situation 
  
quickly 
  and 
  effectively. 
  With 
  the 
  benefit 
  of 
  hindsight, 
  it 
  is 
  easy 
  find 
  a 
  series 
  of 
  earlier 
  incidents 
  that 
  
could 
  have 
  triggered 
  an 
  investigation 
  and 
  provoked 
  wider 
  change. 
  But 
  that 
  is 
  not 
  the 
  same 
  as 
  
standing 
  idly 
  by 
  in 
  the 
  face 
  of 
  discriminatory 
  behaviour, 
  which 
  both 
  faculty 
  members 
  and 
  
administrators 
  would 
  vigorously 
  deny. 
  In 
  fact, 
  it 
  is 
  clear 
  that 
  the 
  University 
  had 
  tried 
  to 
  marshal 
  
some 
  of 
  its 
  best 
  resources 
  in 
  an 
  effort 
  to 
  upgrade 
  equity, 
  particularly 
  within 
  Dentistry. 
  More 
  
University-­‐initiated 
  workshops 
  and 
  seminars 
  on 
  sexual 
  harassment 
  and 
  human 
  rights 
  took 
  place 
  
inside 
  Dentistry 
  over 
  the 
  past 
  several 
  years 
  than 
  in 
  any 
  other 
  academic 
  unit. 
  The 
  University 
  
published 
  an 
  impressive 
  pamphlet 
  titled 
  “Sexual 
  Assault: 
  Response 
  Guidelines” 
  and 
  created 
  an 
  
innovative 
  video 
  series 
  on 
  “Consent.” 
  Thus, 
  there 
  is 
  evidence 
  that 
  the 
  University 
  did 
  take 
  action 
  
before 
  the 
  Facebook 
  incident. 
  There 
  is 
  more 
  evidence 
  that 
  it 
  was 
  not 
  enough. 
  One 
  obvious 
  
conclusion 
  is 
  that 
  our 
  traditional 
  methods 
  of 
  delivering 
  equity 
  education 
  are 
  not 
  hitting 
  the 
  mark. 
  
This 
  is 
  not 
  a 
  problem 
  facing 
  Dalhousie 
  alone. 
  And 
  it 
  may 
  be 
  that 
  Dentistry 
  is 
  no 
  more 
  sexist, 
  
homophobic, 
  and 
  racist 
  than 
  other 
  campus 
  units. 
  
Problems 
  rarely 
  surface 
  in 
  the 
  most 
  discriminatory 
  environments, 
  where 
  there 
  are 
  not 
  enough 
  
disparate 
  voices 
  to 
  protest. 
  Conflagrations 
  ignite 
  in 
  settings 
  on 
  the 
  cusp 
  of 
  change. 
  They 
  usually 
  
happen 
  when 
  a 
  critical 
  mass 
  of 
  protesters 
  believes 
  that 
  the 
  potential 
  for 
  reform 
  is 
  worth 
  the 
  risk. 
  
The 
  firestorm 
  (and 
  the 
  publicity 
  that 
  goes 
  with 
  it) 
  comes 
  from 
  the 
  courage 
  and 
  energy 
  of 
  people 
  
who 
  protest 
  because 
  they 
  think 
  they 
  might 
  actually 
  be 
  heard. 
  Places 
  where 
  everything 
  looks 
  
settled 
  and 
  calm 
  are 
  often 
  the 
  places 
  where 
  inequalities 
  run 
  deepest. 
   
  
No 
  institution 
  wants 
  to 
  be 
  at 
  the 
  centre 
  of 
  a 
  scandal, 
  but 
  we 
  should 
  remember 
  that 
  it 
  signals 
  the 
  
potential 
  for 
  change 
  if 
  there 
  is 
  strength 
  on 
  the 
  ground 
  and 
  those 
  in 
  charge 
  are 
  perceived 
  as 
  people 
  

 
  

39 
    
  

 who 
  can 
  and 
  might 
  do 
  something. 
  If 
  events 
  like 
  this 
  are 
  not 
  happening 
  in 
  our 
  faculties, 
  
universities, 
  workplaces, 
  and 
  other 
  institutions, 
  it 
  is 
  highly 
  unlikely 
  that 
  it 
  is 
  because 
  they 
  are 
  
above 
  them. 
  We 
  heard 
  repeatedly 
  that 
  diverse 
  faculties 
  and 
  universities 
  across 
  the 
  country 
  were 
  
heaving 
  sighs 
  of 
  relief 
  that 
  this 
  scandal 
  had 
  not 
  erupted 
  in 
  their 
  backyards. 
  Quite 
  a 
  number 
  of 
  
Facebook 
  pages 
  at 
  other 
  institutions 
  closed 
  down 
  in 
  a 
  hurry 
  within 
  days 
  of 
  the 
  Dalhousie 
  scandal. 
  
The 
  three 
  hundred 
  people 
  from 
  all 
  12 
  Dalhousie 
  faculties 
  who 
  signed 
  the 
  online 
  “Statement 
  
Against 
  Misogyny 
  and 
  Gendered 
  Violence” 
  in 
  the 
  midst 
  of 
  the 
  crisis 
  underscored 
  the 
  sense 
  that 
  
this 
  is 
  a 
  shared 
  problem. 
  They 
  publicly 
  acknowledged 
  the 
  problem 
  of 
  sexualized 
  violence 
  on 
  
Dalhousie 
  campuses, 
  on 
  other 
  university 
  campuses 
  in 
  our 
  province 
  and 
  across 
  the 
  country.” 
  They 
  
apologized 
  for 
  their 
  past 
  failure 
  to 
  “respond 
  effectively” 
  and 
  for 
  allowing 
  events 
  to 
  be 
  “perceived 
  
as 
  someone 
  else’s 
  problem 
  when 
  it 
  was 
  our 
  problem 
  as 
  well.” 
  They 
  committed 
  themselves 
  to 
  
working 
  to 
  make 
  university 
  campuses 
  “safe 
  and 
  supportive 
  learning 
  environments 
  for 
  women 
  and 
  
members 
  of 
  other 
  vulnerable 
  groups.” 
  It 
  would 
  be 
  optimistic 
  to 
  think 
  that 
  many 
  campuses 
  could 
  
boast 
  a 
  similar 
  expression 
  of 
  collective 
  responsibility 
  and 
  commitment 
  for 
  change. 
   
  
The 
  path 
  ahead 
  may 
  not 
  be 
  clear, 
  but 
  the 
  events 
  the 
  Task 
  Force 
  has 
  examined 
  have 
  opened 
  up 
  
significant 
  possibilities 
  for 
  change, 
  both 
  within 
  Dentistry 
  and 
  throughout 
  the 
  University. 
  

(c) 
  Social 
  media 
  
The 
  “DDS 
  2015 
  Gentlemen” 
  started 
  their 
  page 
  in 
  their 
  first 
  year. 
  Virtually 
  all 
  of 
  the 
  male 
  students 
  
in 
  that 
  year 
  were 
  members 
  at 
  various 
  times, 
  with 
  the 
  exception 
  of 
  one 
  who 
  was 
  not 
  on 
  Facebook 
  
and 
  the 
  QP 
  students, 
  who 
  joined 
  the 
  class 
  in 
  third 
  year 
  and 
  who 
  were 
  not 
  invited 
  to 
  join. 
  The 
  class 
  
of 
  2015 
  also 
  had 
  a 
  female-­‐only 
  Facebook 
  group 
  that 
  started 
  in 
  first 
  year. 
  There 
  was 
  a 
  Facebook 
  
group 
  open 
  to 
  the 
  whole 
  class, 
  including 
  the 
  QP 
  students, 
  and 
  a 
  Facebook 
  group 
  just 
  for 
  the 
  QP 
  
students. 
  We 
  have 
  no 
  information 
  about 
  the 
  content 
  of 
  posts 
  within 
  these 
  other 
  groups. 
  We 
  have 
  
been 
  told 
  that 
  the 
  DDS 
  2014, 
  DDS 
  2016, 
  and 
  DDS 
  2017 
  classes 
  had 
  no 
  gender-­‐segregated 
  
Facebook 
  groups. 
   
  
Over 
  the 
  past 
  decade, 
  Facebook 
  and 
  other 
  social 
  media 
  have 
  become 
  a 
  virtually 
  indispensable 
  
form 
  of 
  social 
  interaction. 
  Within 
  universities, 
  they 
  are 
  used 
  both 
  for 
  instruction 
  and 
  evaluation. 
  
Many, 
  if 
  not 
  all, 
  university 
  students 
  rely 
  on 
  Facebook 
  as 
  a 
  way 
  to 
  engage 
  in 
  social, 
  political, 
  and 
  
cultural 
  interactions 
  and 
  to 
  manage 
  school 
  and 
  work 
  tasks. 
  Some 
  say 
  it 
  is 
  no 
  longer 
  possible 
  to 
  
participate 
  in 
  school, 
  work, 
  or 
  social 
  life 
  without 
  it. 
   
  
Complaints 
  about 
  sexual 
  misconduct 
  in 
  social 
  media 
  forums 
  are 
  gradually 
  increasing, 
  in 
  tandem 
  
with 
  media 
  publicity 
  and 
  growing 
  awareness 
  that 
  university 
  codes 
  of 
  conduct, 
  sexual 
  harassment 
  
policies, 
  and 
  similar 
  rules 
  apply 
  to 
  social 
  media. 
  Dalhousie 
  has 
  had 
  four 
  other 
  sexual 
  misconduct 
  
complaints 
  related 
  to 
  social 
  media 
  since 
  September 
  2014. 
   
  
Some 
  people 
  blame 
  Facebook 
  itself 
  for 
  making 
  it 
  possible 
  to 
  spread 
  objectionable 
  content. 
  It 
  is 
  
true 
  that 
  people 
  are 
  less 
  inhibited 
  on 
  Facebook 
  than 
  they 
  are 
  when 
  face 
  to 
  face. 
  This 
  is 
  the 
  case 
  
even 
  when 
  they 
  are 
  not 
  posting 
  anonymously. 
  Studies 
  show 
  that 
  even 
  when 
  individuals 
  identify 
  

 
  

40 
    
  

 themselves 
  by 
  name, 
  they 
  post 
  things 
  they 
  would 
  not 
  say 
  in 
  person. 
  This 
  may 
  be 
  because 
  they 
  
tend 
  to 
  be 
  posting 
  to 
  communities 
  of 
  like-­‐minded 
  people 
  (such 
  as 
  Facebook 
  groups), 
  which 
  they 
  
experience 
  as 
  private—despite 
  many 
  highly 
  publicized 
  embarrassing 
  incidents 
  illustrating 
  that 
  they 
  
are 
  not. 
  Another 
  factor 
  is 
  speed. 
  Electronic 
  communications 
  are 
  so 
  common 
  and 
  frequent 
  that 
  
many 
  people 
  fire 
  them 
  off 
  with 
  little 
  thought. 
  Messages 
  and 
  posts 
  take 
  so 
  little 
  time 
  that 
  putting 
  
something 
  in 
  writing 
  is 
  no 
  guarantee 
  of 
  more 
  reflection 
  than 
  a 
  blurted 
  remark. 
   
  
We 
  heard 
  that 
  in 
  some 
  male 
  social 
  groups, 
  particularly 
  in 
  social 
  media, 
  the 
  members 
  are 
  under 
  
pressure 
  to 
  fit 
  in 
  by 
  showing 
  that 
  they 
  are 
  sexist, 
  misogynistic, 
  and 
  homophobic. 
  This 
  seems 
  to 
  
assert 
  the 
  group’s 
  masculinity 
  and 
  reinforce 
  the 
  social 
  bond. 
  The 
  one-­‐upmanship 
  group 
  dynamic 
  
escalates 
  the 
  shock 
  value, 
  aided 
  and 
  abetted 
  by 
  how 
  easy 
  it 
  is 
  to 
  find 
  offensive 
  images 
  on 
  line 
  and 
  
add 
  them 
  to 
  posts. 
  Quite 
  a 
  number 
  of 
  the 
  posts 
  that 
  most 
  shocked 
  people 
  came 
  from 
  popular 
  
sites 
  like 
  the 
  Urban 
  Dictionary. 
  That 
  does 
  not 
  make 
  them 
  either 
  more 
  acceptable 
  or 
  less. 
  It 
  does 
  
help 
  us 
  understand 
  how 
  this 
  happened 
  and 
  what 
  it 
  meant 
  to 
  the 
  members, 
  which 
  may 
  be 
  
important 
  when 
  thinking 
  about 
  how 
  institutions 
  should 
  respond 
  to 
  situations 
  like 
  this. 
   
  
Some 
  people 
  said 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  were 
  like 
  a 
  locker 
  room 
  conversation. 
  Not 
  really. 
  Social 
  
media 
  creates 
  a 
  record 
  of 
  what 
  might 
  otherwise 
  be 
  a 
  fleeting 
  exchange 
  or 
  a 
  thoughtless, 
  off-­‐the-­‐
cuff 
  remark. 
  People 
  may 
  not 
  experience 
  it 
  as 
  a 
  record, 
  because 
  posts 
  soon 
  disappear 
  from 
  view 
  as 
  
new 
  ones 
  are 
  added—unless 
  they 
  scroll 
  back. 
  Most 
  people 
  only 
  see 
  the 
  posts 
  they 
  have 
  not 
  read 
  
when 
  they 
  visit 
  a 
  page. 
  It 
  seems 
  very 
  likely 
  that 
  people 
  who 
  read 
  the 
  screenshots 
  experienced 
  
them 
  differently 
  from 
  those 
  who 
  saw 
  them 
  on 
  line. 
   
  
Student 
  A 
  took 
  the 
  screenshots 
  selectively. 
  She 
  was 
  singling 
  out 
  offensive 
  content, 
  not 
  trying 
  to 
  
collect 
  a 
  representative 
  sample 
  of 
  three 
  and 
  a 
  half 
  years 
  of 
  posts. 
  The 
  impact 
  of 
  reading 
  the 
  
screenshots 
  may 
  have 
  been 
  different 
  from 
  reading 
  them 
  as 
  scattered 
  posts 
  over 
  years. 
  Published 
  
and 
  discussed 
  in 
  the 
  media, 
  the 
  posts 
  took 
  on 
  more 
  significance 
  and 
  more 
  permanence. 
  
Appreciating 
  how 
  different 
  people 
  experienced 
  the 
  posts 
  in 
  different 
  ways 
  is 
  important 
  when 
  it 
  
comes 
  to 
  strategies 
  for 
  change. 
   
  
There 
  is 
  growing 
  publicity 
  and 
  public 
  concern 
  about 
  the 
  use 
  of 
  social 
  media 
  for 
  offensive 
  
expression. 
  That 
  may 
  be 
  why 
  the 
  sexist, 
  misogynistic, 
  and 
  homophobic 
  views 
  in 
  the 
  Facebook 
  
posts 
  got 
  so 
  much 
  attention. 
  After 
  all, 
  the 
  graffiti 
  in 
  the 
  student 
  lounge 
  was 
  just 
  as 
  sexist, 
  
misogynistic, 
  and 
  homophobic. 
  It 
  had 
  been 
  multiplying 
  there 
  for 
  years. 
  Students, 
  faculty, 
  and 
  
alumni 
  had 
  seen 
  it. 
  There 
  was 
  no 
  public 
  outcry, 
  and 
  requests 
  to 
  have 
  it 
  painted 
  over 
  were 
  refused. 
  
The 
  University 
  paints 
  over 
  racist 
  graffiti 
  on 
  campus, 
  but 
  the 
  graffiti 
  attract 
  little 
  or 
  no 
  publicity. 
  
And 
  although 
  bullying 
  is 
  far 
  from 
  new, 
  it 
  is 
  cyber-­‐bullying 
  that 
  attracts 
  most 
  public 
  attention. 
  
Raising 
  public 
  awareness 
  about 
  new 
  forms 
  of 
  longstanding 
  problems 
  is 
  important, 
  but 
  the 
  
problems 
  themselves 
  are 
  not 
  new. 
  
Educating 
  people 
  about 
  acceptable 
  social 
  media 
  behaviour 
  is 
  fairly 
  new 
  territory. 
  Early 
  attempts 
  
either 
  warned 
  people 
  not 
  to 
  participate 
  because 
  it 
  was 
  risky, 
  or 
  laid 
  out 
  dos 
  and 
  don’ts. 
  Research 
  
has 
  shown 
  that 
  neither 
  approach 
  worked. 
  There 
  is 
  no 
  consensus 
  on 
  how 
  or 
  what 
  to 
  teach, 
  but 
  

 
  

41 
    
  

 researchers 
  are 
  finding 
  that 
  participatory, 
  peer-­‐based, 
  and 
  intergenerational 
  approaches 
  are 
  
promising. 
  Researchers 
  are 
  also 
  looking 
  at 
  how 
  students 
  in 
  professional 
  faculties 
  like 
  medicine 
  
think 
  about 
  their 
  online 
  behaviour. 
  It 
  seems 
  that 
  they 
  have 
  a 
  poor 
  understanding 
  of 
  the 
  ethical, 
  
legal, 
  and 
  professional 
  implications 
  of 
  what 
  they 
  do 
  on 
  line. 
  One 
  study 
  using 
  mock 
  Facebook 
  
postings 
  found 
  that 
  medical 
  students, 
  younger 
  people, 
  and 
  men 
  considered 
  certain 
  postings 
  
appropriate, 
  but 
  doctors, 
  older 
  people, 
  and 
  women 
  considered 
  them 
  inappropriate. 
   
  
Faculties, 
  universities 
  and 
  professional 
  regulatory 
  bodies 
  are 
  beginning 
  to 
  update 
  their 
  policies 
  to 
  
include 
  social 
  media 
  conduct. 
  Most 
  have 
  either 
  amended 
  existing 
  conduct 
  codes 
  to 
  say 
  that 
  they 
  
apply 
  to 
  online 
  behaviour 
  or 
  created 
  a 
  separate 
  social 
  media 
  policy 
  or 
  guideline. 
  Professionals 
  and 
  
students 
  generally 
  understand 
  that 
  they 
  are 
  subject 
  to 
  codes 
  of 
  conduct 
  in 
  a 
  way 
  that 
  members 
  of 
  
the 
  public 
  are 
  not. 
  And 
  they 
  certainly 
  understand 
  that 
  a 
  code 
  of 
  conduct 
  requiring 
  them 
  to 
  treat 
  
others 
  with 
  respect 
  applies 
  when 
  they 
  are 
  face 
  to 
  face. 
  Yet, 
  despite 
  the 
  growing 
  integration 
  of 
  
social 
  media 
  into 
  student 
  life, 
  there 
  is 
  still 
  a 
  feeling 
  that 
  people 
  can 
  say 
  or 
  do 
  anything 
  they 
  like 
  on 
  
the 
  internet. 
  It 
  may 
  help 
  to 
  spell 
  it 
  out 
  for 
  them 
  that 
  the 
  rules 
  apply 
  to 
  social 
  media, 
  too. 
   
  
In 
  any 
  case, 
  rules, 
  guidelines, 
  and 
  codes 
  of 
  conduct 
  are 
  not 
  enough. 
  We 
  believe 
  that 
  participatory 
  
forms 
  of 
  learning 
  about 
  the 
  legal 
  and 
  ethical 
  implications 
  of 
  their 
  online 
  conduct 
  should 
  be 
  
available 
  to 
  students 
  and 
  professionals. 
  This 
  would 
  help 
  them 
  absorb 
  and 
  comply 
  with 
  the 
  
institution’s 
  standards 
  of 
  behaviour. 
   
  
Taking 
  into 
  account 
  social 
  media’s 
  unique 
  features 
  is 
  part 
  of 
  understanding 
  and 
  responding 
  to 
  the 
  
Facebook 
  episode 
  and 
  putting 
  it 
  in 
  perspective, 
  but 
  it 
  is 
  far 
  from 
  the 
  most 
  important 
  factor. 
  No 
  
amount 
  of 
  regulating 
  social 
  media 
  behaviour 
  will 
  eliminate 
  sexism, 
  misogyny, 
  or 
  homophobia. 
  
That 
  will 
  call 
  for 
  fundamental 
  systemic 
  change. 
  

(d) 
  Society 
  
The 
  “Class 
  of 
  DDS 
  2015 
  Gentlemen” 
  did 
  not 
  exist 
  in 
  a 
  vacuum, 
  and 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  were 
  far 
  
from 
  original. 
  The 
  content 
  for 
  most 
  of 
  their 
  posts 
  came 
  from 
  elsewhere. 
  The 
  “public 
  entrance” 
  
photo 
  came 
  from 
  an 
  internet 
  comedy 
  website, 
  www.vitamin-­‐ha.com, 
  where 
  it 
  is 
  one 
  of 
  its 
  top 
  five 
  
memes. 
  “Does 
  this 
  rag 
  smell 
  like 
  chloroform 
  to 
  you?” 
  originated 
  on 
  the 
  popular 
  TV 
  show 
  Family 
  
Guy. 
  It 
  was 
  later 
  quoted 
  among 
  the 
  best 
  and 
  worst 
  pick-­‐up 
  lines 
  in 
  the 
  Hollywood 
  movie 
  Hall 
  Pass 
  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z62LjT7w_OY 
  and 
  printed 
  on 
  T-­‐shirts. 
  The 
  sexist 
  and 
  
homophobic 
  definition 
  of 
  “penis” 
  came 
  from 
  the 
  “Urban 
  Dictionary,” 
  a 
  website 
  where 
  users 
  offer 
  
definitions 
  for 
  contemporary 
  American 
  slang. 
   
  
The 
  term 
  “hate 
  fuck” 
  was 
  heard 
  when 
  popular 
  CBC 
  radio 
  host 
  Jian 
  Ghomeshi 
  was 
  accused 
  of 
  
sexual 
  violence 
  in 
  October 
  2014. 
  The 
  phrase 
  was 
  still 
  unknown 
  to 
  many 
  Canadians 
  when 
  it 
  
appeared 
  in 
  the 
  Dalhousie 
  Facebook 
  group 
  page. 
  Contributors 
  had 
  uploaded 
  a 
  range 
  of 
  definitions 
  
to 
  the 
  Urban 
  Dictionary. 
  The 
  gentlest 
  description 
  was 
  “consensual 
  sex 
  with 
  someone 
  who 
  a 
  person 
  
is 
  attracted 
  to, 
  but 
  personally 
  dislikes.” 
  Others 
  were 
  more 
  detailed: 
  “An 
  act 
  typically 
  characterized 
  
by 
  name 
  calling, 
  roughness, 
  and 
  immediate 
  departure 
  after 
  the 
  act.” 
  And 
  this: 
  “One 
  would 
  usually 
  

 
  

42 
    
  

 hate 
  fuck 
  someone 
  who 
  either: 
  is 
  a 
  total 
  bitch, 
  a 
  prude, 
  a 
  whore, 
  or 
  someone 
  who 
  simply 
  looks 
  at 
  
them 
  the 
  wrong 
  way 
  and 
  pretty 
  much 
  had 
  it 
  coming.” 
   
  
It 
  would 
  be 
  tempting 
  to 
  think 
  that 
  “sport 
  fuck” 
  might 
  be 
  a 
  little 
  more 
  positive. 
  One 
  Urban 
  
Dictionary 
  contributor 
  defined 
  it 
  as 
  consensual 
  sex 
  with 
  no 
  strings 
  attached, 
  no 
  romantic 
  
relationship, 
  no 
  involvement. 
  Other 
  contributions 
  seemed 
  much 
  like 
  the 
  “hate 
  fuck” 
  definitions: 
  
“To 
  fuck 
  as 
  quick 
  and 
  hard 
  as 
  possible, 
  simulating 
  a 
  gym 
  workout, 
  with 
  total 
  disregard 
  for 
  your 
  
sexual 
  partner;” 
  or 
  “The 
  pursuit 
  of 
  sex 
  just 
  to 
  add 
  numbers 
  or 
  to 
  add 
  a 
  new 
  kind 
  of 
  trophy 
  to 
  one’s 
  
list. 
  Examples: 
  fucking 
  a 
  cougar, 
  a 
  fat 
  chick, 
  a 
  nerd.” 
   
  
The 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  may 
  have 
  adapted 
  these 
  terms 
  for 
  the 
  specific 
  environment 
  of 
  their 
  dental 
  
school, 
  but 
  the 
  meanings 
  are 
  fluid 
  in 
  any 
  case. 
  That 
  is 
  the 
  whole 
  idea 
  behind 
  the 
  Urban 
  Dictionary. 
  
It 
  is 
  in 
  the 
  process 
  of 
  shaping 
  itself, 
  with 
  2,000 
  new 
  entries 
  daily. 
  It 
  is 
  impossible 
  to 
  know 
  exactly 
  
what 
  the 
  student 
  who 
  posted 
  the 
  “hate 
  fuck” 
  and 
  “sport 
  fuck” 
  poll 
  meant 
  by 
  those 
  terms. 
  Nor 
  can 
  
we 
  know 
  precisely 
  what 
  the 
  other 
  Facebook 
  group 
  members 
  understood 
  them 
  to 
  mean, 
  let 
  alone 
  
the 
  thousands 
  of 
  people 
  who 
  eventually 
  read 
  those 
  words 
  as 
  they 
  followed 
  the 
  escalating 
  events. 
   
  
What 
  is 
  clear 
  is 
  that 
  many 
  young 
  men 
  today 
  appear 
  to 
  be 
  trying 
  to 
  measure 
  up 
  to 
  rigid 
  
expectations 
  of 
  masculinity, 
  which 
  require 
  posturing 
  as 
  aggressive 
  competitors 
  for 
  heterosexual 
  
access 
  to 
  female 
  bodies, 
  using 
  homophobic 
  slurs, 
  and 
  objectifying 
  and 
  demeaning 
  women. 
  At 
  the 
  
same 
  time, 
  popular 
  culture 
  equates 
  girl 
  power 
  with 
  sexual 
  power 
  over 
  men. 
  Relations 
  between 
  
the 
  sexes 
  have 
  increasingly 
  been 
  depicted 
  as 
  about 
  domination 
  and 
  control. 
  Add 
  to 
  this 
  the 
  
relentless 
  drive 
  for 
  consumption 
  and 
  the 
  desire 
  for 
  instant 
  gratification, 
  and 
  we 
  see 
  sexual 
  
relations 
  become 
  like 
  putting 
  items 
  in 
  a 
  shopping 
  cart. 
  You 
  want 
  it, 
  you 
  get 
  it, 
  you 
  move 
  on. 
  
This 
  is 
  exacerbated 
  by 
  the 
  influence 
  of 
  “gonzo” 
  online 
  pornography, 
  now 
  sprouted 
  into 
  a 
  
multibillion-­‐dollar 
  industry. 
  The 
  past 
  two 
  decades 
  have 
  witnessed 
  a 
  seismic 
  shift 
  toward 
  sexist 
  and 
  
racist 
  images 
  of 
  hard-­‐core, 
  humiliating, 
  cruel, 
  body-­‐punishing 
  sex. 
  The 
  chief 
  consumers 
  in 
  Canada 
  
are 
  boys 
  between 
  12 
  and 
  17. 
  Fashion 
  ads 
  and 
  music 
  videos 
  bombard 
  the 
  senses 
  with 
  hyper-­‐
sexualized 
  images. 
  
From 
  all 
  around 
  us, 
  the 
  “pornification 
  culture” 
  is 
  becoming 
  encoded 
  into 
  our 
  gender 
  and 
  sexual 
  
identities. 
  This 
  is 
  reflected 
  in 
  the 
  news: 
  Jian 
  Ghomeshi, 
  Bill 
  Cosby, 
  Dominique 
  Strauss-­‐Kahn, 
  Ray 
  
Rice, 
  the 
  Canadian 
  Armed 
  Forces, 
  the 
  RCMP, 
  Members 
  of 
  Parliament, 
  an 
  Alberta 
  MLA, 
  the 
  Catholic 
  
Church, 
  the 
  uOttawa 
  hockey 
  team, 
  the 
  St. 
  Mary’s 
  rape 
  chant, 
  rape 
  chants 
  endorsing 
  sex 
  with 
  
minors 
  at 
  UBC, 
  male 
  soccer 
  fans 
  shouting 
  at 
  women 
  journalists, 
  sexual 
  assault 
  at 
  Lakehead 
  
University, 
  the 
  tragic 
  death 
  of 
  Rehtaeh 
  Parsons. 
   
  
The 
  documentary 
  Hunting 
  Ground 
  exposed 
  an 
  epidemic 
  of 
  normalized 
  sexual 
  violence 
  on 
  
university 
  and 
  college 
  campuses. 
  Air 
  New 
  Zealand 
  uses 
  sexualized 
  safety 
  videos, 
  and 
  the 
  dentistry 
  
professor 
  who 
  showed 
  it 
  to 
  his 
  class 
  pointed 
  out 
  to 
  us 
  an 
  array 
  of 
  more 
  sexually 
  explicit 
  YouTube 
  
videos 
  featuring 
  dental, 
  law, 
  and 
  other 
  university 
  students. 
  The 
  posts 
  by 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group 
  
mirrored 
  the 
  violent 
  porn 
  culture 
  that 
  infuses 
  our 
  society. 
   
  

 
  

43 
    
  

 Yet 
  there 
  are 
  voices 
  of 
  resistance. 
  Watching 
  the 
  thousands 
  of 
  people 
  who 
  counted 
  themselves 
  in 
  
as 
  part 
  of 
  the 
  protest 
  over 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  and 
  other 
  recent 
  scandals, 
  there 
  is 
  a 
  sense 
  that 
  
real 
  cultural 
  change 
  is 
  possible. 
  Universities 
  are 
  centres 
  for 
  research 
  and 
  education. 
  They 
  are 
  well 
  
positioned 
  to 
  be 
  catalysts 
  for 
  the 
  dramatic 
  change 
  that 
  is 
  so 
  urgently 
  needed. 
   
  

 
  

44 
    
  

 Chapter 
  5. 
  Influences 
  on 
  Behaviour 
  and 
  Experience 
   
  
Many 
  different 
  factors 
  may 
  intersect 
  with 
  and 
  influence 
  how 
  people 
  experience 
  and 
  respond 
  to 
  
incidents 
  of 
  sexism, 
  misogyny, 
  and 
  homophobia. 
  Perpetrators, 
  victims, 
  and 
  authorities 
  charged 
  
with 
  dealing 
  with 
  those 
  incidents 
  are 
  all 
  subject 
  to 
  those 
  influences. 
  To 
  understand 
  the 
  meaning 
  of 
  
the 
  Facebook 
  incident, 
  we 
  need 
  to 
  consider 
  the 
  influences 
  that 
  may 
  have 
  played 
  a 
  part. 
  

(a) 
  Race 
  
It 
  became 
  clear 
  to 
  us 
  in 
  our 
  interviews 
  that 
  race 
  (encompassing 
  ethnicity, 
  indigeneity, 
  nationality 
  
and 
  religion) 
  is 
  an 
  important 
  contextual 
  element 
  in 
  understanding 
  what 
  happened. 
  Many 
  people 
  
told 
  us 
  that 
  racism 
  is 
  a 
  “ticking 
  bomb” 
  at 
  Dalhousie. 
  We 
  heard 
  about 
  numerous 
  incidents 
  of 
  overt 
  
racism: 
  “No 
  N-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐rs 
  Allowed” 
  and 
  “#whitepower” 
  on 
  walls 
  of 
  washrooms 
  and 
  study 
  rooms 
  in 
  the 
  
Killam 
  Library; 
  anti-­‐Muslim 
  messages 
  on 
  campus 
  prayer 
  spaces; 
  angry 
  white 
  students 
  disrupting 
  an 
  
African 
  Students’ 
  Association 
  event 
  featuring 
  El 
  Jones, 
  Poet 
  Laureate 
  of 
  Halifax. 
  
Black 
  faculty 
  and 
  staff 
  told 
  us 
  of 
  racial 
  harassment 
  and 
  discrimination 
  in 
  employment. 
  Recent 
  
immigrants 
  described 
  feeling 
  marginalized. 
  Indigenous 
  people 
  said 
  their 
  communities 
  were 
  
virtually 
  absent 
  on 
  campus. 
  What 
  we 
  heard 
  suggests 
  an 
  entrenched 
  culture 
  of 
  white 
  privilege. 
  The 
  
prevailing 
  ideology 
  is 
  “racelessness.” 
  Race 
  is 
  supposed 
  to 
  be 
  irrelevant, 
  which 
  ignores 
  the 
  reality 
  of 
  
the 
  impact 
  of 
  racism. 
   
  
The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry, 
  existing 
  within 
  this 
  environment, 
  does 
  not 
  collect 
  adequate 
  data 
  on 
  
racial, 
  ethnic, 
  or 
  cultural 
  affiliation 
  for 
  faculty 
  members, 
  staff, 
  and 
  students. 
  We 
  were 
  unable 
  to 
  
obtain 
  numbers, 
  but 
  we 
  understand 
  that 
  there 
  are 
  very 
  few 
  racialized 
  faculty 
  members. 
  Dentistry 
  
does 
  not 
  have 
  an 
  Indigenous 
  Black 
  & 
  Mi’kmaq 
  admissions 
  program. 
  We 
  were 
  told 
  that 
  it 
  has 
  never 
  
had 
  an 
  indigenous 
  faculty 
  member, 
  staff 
  member, 
  or 
  student, 
  in 
  part 
  because 
  they 
  are 
  significantly 
  
underrepresented 
  in 
  the 
  educational 
  streams 
  that 
  lead 
  to 
  dentistry. 
  
Against 
  this 
  disturbing 
  backdrop, 
  some 
  people 
  were 
  surprised 
  that 
  the 
  screenshots 
  did 
  not 
  contain 
  
racial 
  slurs. 
  And 
  as 
  a 
  result, 
  many 
  people 
  assumed 
  that 
  race 
  was 
  irrelevant 
  to 
  the 
  incident. 
  That 
  
was 
  not 
  the 
  case. 
  
A 
  number 
  of 
  people 
  pointed 
  out 
  to 
  us 
  that 
  the 
  response 
  to 
  the 
  incident, 
  both 
  within 
  the 
  University 
  
and 
  in 
  the 
  media, 
  reflected 
  and 
  reinforced 
  the 
  culture 
  of 
  white 
  privilege. 
  Incidents 
  of 
  sexual 
  
harassment 
  and 
  violence 
  against 
  racialized 
  women, 
  both 
  on 
  campus 
  and 
  elsewhere, 
  tend 
  to 
  
attract 
  very 
  little 
  media 
  attention 
  and 
  inadequate 
  responses 
  from 
  the 
  authorities. 
  But 
  when 
  a 
  
group 
  of 
  white 
  women 
  became 
  the 
  subject 
  of 
  offensive 
  comments, 
  there 
  was 
  an 
  extraordinary 
  
level 
  of 
  concern 
  and 
  urgency, 
  along 
  with 
  public 
  outrage. 
  We 
  also 
  heard 
  that 
  media 
  attention 
  on 
  
the 
  Facebook 
  episode 
  overshadowed 
  racial 
  issues 
  and 
  incidents 
  happening 
  on 
  campus 
  during 
  the 
  
same 
  period. 
   
  

 
  

45 
    
  

 The 
  QP 
  dental 
  students 
  are 
  a 
  markedly 
  racialized 
  group. 
  They 
  join 
  the 
  class 
  in 
  third 
  year, 
  but 
  are 
  
treated 
  differently 
  from 
  the 
  rest 
  of 
  the 
  class. 
  Because 
  male 
  QP 
  students 
  were 
  never 
  invited 
  into 
  
the 
  Facebook 
  group, 
  people 
  assumed 
  that 
  the 
  group 
  members 
  were 
  all 
  white. 
   
  
In 
  fact, 
  the 
  posters 
  were 
  not 
  a 
  homogeneous 
  group. 
  When 
  the 
  racial, 
  ethnic, 
  and 
  religious 
  
diversity 
  in 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group 
  became 
  known, 
  some 
  people 
  said 
  that 
  the 
  screenshots 
  had 
  
targeted 
  certain 
  racialized 
  members. 
  We 
  also 
  heard 
  that 
  immigrant 
  men 
  and 
  men 
  from 
  minority 
  
cultures 
  or 
  religions 
  feel 
  greater 
  pressure 
  to 
  conform 
  to 
  prevailing 
  masculine 
  norms, 
  and 
  that 
  this 
  
may 
  have 
  influenced 
  their 
  Facebook 
  group 
  behaviour. 
  
The 
  influence 
  of 
  race 
  does 
  not 
  justify 
  objectionable 
  conduct. 
  Nevertheless, 
  it 
  should 
  be 
  taken 
  into 
  
account 
  in 
  deciding 
  how 
  best 
  to 
  respond. 
   
  

(b) 
  Homophobia 
  
We 
  heard 
  from 
  very 
  few 
  people 
  in 
  Dentistry 
  who 
  identified 
  as 
  LGBTQ. 
  Most 
  people 
  we 
  met 
  did 
  not 
  
mention 
  incidents 
  of 
  homophobia 
  or 
  discuss 
  heterosexism 
  at 
  all, 
  so 
  we 
  have 
  limited 
  scope 
  to 
  talk 
  
about 
  homophobia 
  related 
  to 
  the 
  Facebook 
  episode. 
  
However, 
  we 
  did 
  see 
  evidence 
  of 
  homophobia. 
  One 
  of 
  the 
  screenshots 
  encouraged 
  sexual 
  violence 
  
to 
  convert 
  lesbians 
  to 
  “useful 
  productive 
  members 
  of 
  society.” 
  The 
  student 
  lounge 
  graffiti 
  had 
  a 
  
sketch 
  of 
  a 
  man 
  bending 
  over 
  and 
  another 
  man 
  approaching 
  with 
  an 
  exposed 
  penis. 
  The 
  caption 
  
read, 
  “Oh 
  [name], 
  I’m 
  ready 
  for 
  you 
  this 
  time.” 
  Another 
  depicted 
  a 
  man 
  holding 
  his 
  exposed 
  
testicles 
  with 
  the 
  caption: 
  “[Name] 
  is 
  the 
  gayest 
  boy 
  alive!!! 
  And 
  sucks 
  goats!” 
  “Fag” 
  appears 
  many 
  
times 
  on 
  the 
  wall. 
  
These 
  examples 
  suggest 
  an 
  embedded 
  heterosexist 
  culture 
  that 
  encourages 
  public 
  posturing 
  to 
  
underscore 
  heterosexuality. 
  The 
  posturing 
  is 
  central 
  to 
  reinforcing 
  the 
  masculinist 
  worldview 
  
especially 
  common 
  in 
  male-­‐dominant 
  professions. 
  
We 
  heard 
  from 
  some 
  that 
  the 
  out 
  LGBTQ 
  community 
  is 
  new 
  in 
  Nova 
  Scotia, 
  with 
  numbers 
  still 
  
small 
  enough 
  that 
  “people 
  tend 
  not 
  to 
  find 
  it 
  threatening.” 
  A 
  graduate 
  from 
  the 
  dental 
  school 
  
recalled 
  an 
  atmosphere 
  of 
  homophobia 
  in 
  the 
  mid-­‐80s, 
  when 
  the 
  AIDS 
  crisis 
  was 
  unfolding. 
  
Patients 
  and 
  dental 
  students 
  were 
  afraid 
  of 
  being 
  infected 
  while 
  treating 
  or 
  receiving 
  treatment 
  
from 
  gay 
  men. 
  A 
  later 
  graduate 
  wrote 
  to 
  us 
  to 
  say 
  that 
  he 
  had 
  been 
  out 
  as 
  a 
  gay 
  man 
  while 
  in 
  the 
  
DDS 
  program 
  and 
  that 
  his 
  experience 
  had 
  been 
  positive. 
  Another 
  person 
  described 
  dentistry 
  as 
  a 
  
“gay 
  friendly” 
  profession. 
  
That 
  is 
  encouraging, 
  but 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts, 
  the 
  graffiti, 
  and 
  the 
  lack 
  of 
  out 
  LGBTQ 
  faculty 
  
members, 
  staff, 
  and 
  students 
  suggest 
  that 
  the 
  environment 
  cannot 
  be 
  considered 
  safe. 
  We 
  did 
  not 
  
receive 
  enough 
  evidence 
  to 
  know 
  whether 
  race 
  influences 
  homophobia 
  in 
  Dentistry. 
  

 
  

46 
    
  

 (c) 
  Perceptions 
  of 
  dentistry 
  
The 
  fact 
  that 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group 
  members 
  were 
  future 
  dentists 
  may 
  have 
  influenced 
  the 
  degree 
  
of 
  public 
  outrage 
  and 
  media 
  attention. 
  Dalhousie 
  dental 
  students 
  come 
  from 
  many 
  different 
  
backgrounds. 
  Some 
  are 
  from 
  well-­‐off 
  families 
  and 
  some 
  are 
  the 
  first 
  in 
  their 
  families 
  to 
  go 
  to 
  
university. 
  Many 
  have 
  accumulated 
  significant 
  debt 
  for 
  their 
  education. 
  However, 
  dentists 
  are 
  
seen 
  as 
  rich 
  and 
  fortunate. 
  Bad 
  behaviour 
  by 
  people 
  perceived 
  to 
  be 
  privileged 
  is 
  particularly 
  
galling 
  for 
  many 
  people. 
   
  
The 
  perception 
  of 
  privilege 
  is 
  reinforced 
  by 
  the 
  hierarchy 
  in 
  the 
  dental 
  field. 
  At 
  school, 
  dental 
  
students 
  are 
  at 
  the 
  top. 
  About 
  half 
  of 
  the 
  students 
  are 
  now 
  women, 
  but 
  dentistry 
  was 
  traditionally 
  
male-­‐dominated 
  and 
  that 
  perception 
  persists. 
  Dental 
  hygiene 
  students 
  rank 
  lower, 
  followed 
  by 
  the 
  
dental 
  assistants. 
  Both 
  groups 
  are 
  traditionally 
  all 
  women. 
  Some 
  observers 
  suggested 
  that 
  this 
  
hierarchy 
  contributes 
  to 
  a 
  culture 
  where 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group 
  felt 
  entitled 
  to 
  demean 
  women. 
   
  
Not 
  only 
  are 
  dentists 
  seen 
  as 
  rich, 
  but 
  also 
  they 
  are 
  seen 
  as 
  getting 
  rich 
  while 
  inflicting 
  pain. 
  For 
  
that 
  reason, 
  some 
  wondered 
  whether 
  the 
  tide 
  of 
  anger 
  would 
  have 
  been 
  the 
  same 
  if 
  the 
  posters 
  
had 
  been 
  law, 
  engineering, 
  or 
  computer 
  science 
  students. 
  
Unlike 
  lawyers, 
  engineers, 
  or 
  computer 
  experts, 
  a 
  dentist 
  puts 
  people 
  in 
  a 
  physically 
  vulnerable 
  
position 
  to 
  do 
  his 
  or 
  her 
  work—prone, 
  often 
  feeling 
  pain, 
  unable 
  to 
  speak, 
  and 
  possibly 
  drugged. 
  
Necessarily, 
  the 
  dentist 
  is 
  physically 
  close, 
  with 
  instruments 
  and 
  fingers 
  in 
  the 
  person’s 
  mouth. 
  
Most 
  people 
  recognize 
  the 
  importance 
  of 
  oral 
  health 
  and 
  the 
  value 
  of 
  the 
  services 
  dentists 
  
provide. 
  Yet 
  on 
  an 
  emotional 
  level, 
  for 
  many 
  people, 
  being 
  in 
  the 
  dental 
  chair 
  is 
  akin 
  to 
  being 
  at 
  
someone’s 
  mercy. 
  A 
  high 
  level 
  of 
  trust 
  is 
  necessary 
  to 
  offset 
  that 
  emotional 
  response, 
  which 
  may 
  
have 
  influenced 
  the 
  level 
  of 
  public 
  outrage. 
  One 
  Halifax 
  journalist 
  wrote, 
  “I’m 
  not 
  sure 
  I’d 
  want 
  to 
  
be 
  on 
  the 
  receiving 
  end 
  of 
  a 
  needle 
  held 
  by 
  a 
  man 
  whose 
  idea 
  of 
  fun 
  is 
  threatening 
  to 
  drug 
  women 
  
with 
  chloroform 
  and 
  then 
  raping 
  them. 
  I 
  daresay 
  a 
  rape 
  survivor 
  wouldn’t 
  either.” 
  
The 
  trust 
  issue 
  might 
  help 
  to 
  explain 
  the 
  very 
  swift 
  response 
  of 
  several 
  provincial 
  dentistry 
  
licensing 
  bodies. 
  A 
  number 
  of 
  them 
  announced 
  that 
  they 
  would 
  take 
  special 
  precautions 
  before 
  
licensing 
  members 
  of 
  the 
  Dalhousie 
  Dentistry 
  class 
  of 
  2015. 
  They 
  may 
  have 
  wanted 
  to 
  portray 
  the 
  
Facebook 
  group 
  as 
  anomalies. 
  If 
  they 
  were 
  not, 
  it 
  would 
  erode 
  trust 
  in 
  the 
  profession 
  and 
  
confidence 
  in 
  the 
  ability 
  of 
  its 
  regulatory 
  bodies 
  to 
  protect 
  the 
  public 
  interest. 
  
It 
  is 
  clear 
  that 
  race 
  and 
  perceptions 
  of 
  dentistry 
  influenced 
  the 
  sexist 
  and 
  misogynist 
  behaviour 
  in 
  
the 
  Facebook 
  group 
  and 
  the 
  way 
  people 
  experienced 
  it. 
  We 
  did 
  not 
  hear 
  enough 
  about 
  
homophobia 
  to 
  be 
  able 
  to 
  say 
  what 
  factors 
  shaped 
  perceptions 
  and 
  experiences 
  of 
  it 
  here. 
  We 
  also 
  
did 
  not 
  hear 
  about 
  the 
  influence 
  of 
  factors 
  such 
  as 
  disability, 
  gender 
  identity, 
  family 
  status, 
  or 
  age. 
  
We 
  know 
  that 
  problems 
  such 
  as 
  sexism, 
  misogyny 
  and 
  homophobia 
  are 
  not 
  one-­‐dimensional. 
  The 
  
reason 
  they 
  are 
  assumed 
  to 
  be 
  so 
  deserves 
  future 
  questioning 
  and 
  reflection. 
  

 
  

47 
    
  

 Chapter 
  6. 
  Review 
  of 
  How 
  the 
  University 
  Used 
  Policies 
  and 
  
Procedures 
  in 
  Its 
  Response 
  
In 
  assessing 
  the 
  University’s 
  response, 
  we 
  looked 
  at 
  the 
  policies 
  and 
  practices 
  in 
  Dentistry 
  and 
  the 
  
University 
  as 
  a 
  whole. 
  Were 
  the 
  responses 
  effective? 
  How 
  could 
  they 
  be 
  improved? 
   
  
The 
  intensity 
  of 
  public 
  attention 
  created 
  enormous 
  stress 
  for 
  decision-­‐makers 
  in 
  Dentistry 
  and 
  the 
  
University. 
  Every 
  action 
  was 
  subjected 
  to 
  intense 
  scrutiny 
  and 
  a 
  barrage 
  of 
  passionate 
  
commentary 
  from 
  every 
  point 
  of 
  view. 
  Even 
  the 
  most 
  robust 
  of 
  policies, 
  applied 
  by 
  the 
  most 
  
experienced 
  administrators, 
  could 
  falter 
  under 
  those 
  conditions. 
  Unlike 
  the 
  people 
  involved, 
  we 
  
had 
  time, 
  and 
  the 
  benefit 
  of 
  hindsight. 
  Our 
  assessment 
  is 
  not 
  meant 
  to 
  judge 
  those 
  who 
  were 
  in 
  
the 
  front 
  line 
  at 
  the 
  time. 
  We 
  aim 
  to 
  offer 
  useful 
  information 
  about 
  what 
  does 
  not 
  work, 
  so 
  that 
  
administrators 
  at 
  Dalhousie 
  and 
  elsewhere 
  can 
  consider 
  their 
  responses 
  before 
  a 
  crisis 
  is 
  upon 
  
them. 
  
Student 
  codes 
  of 
  conduct 
  and 
  policies 
  on 
  sexual 
  harassment 
  and 
  discrimination 
  are 
  common 
  in 
  
Canadian 
  universities. 
  They 
  vary 
  in 
  some 
  respects, 
  but 
  we 
  believe 
  they 
  are 
  similar 
  enough 
  that 
  a 
  
discussion 
  of 
  Dalhousie’s 
  code 
  and 
  policies 
  will 
  be 
  useful 
  to 
  other 
  universities. 
   
  
Behaviour 
  similar 
  to 
  what 
  we 
  saw 
  on 
  the 
  screenshots 
  is 
  going 
  on 
  at 
  other 
  campuses. 
  We 
  heard 
  
about 
  similar 
  incidents 
  during 
  the 
  course 
  of 
  our 
  work. 
  Assessing 
  Dalhousie’s 
  interpretation 
  and 
  
application 
  of 
  its 
  policies 
  during 
  the 
  crisis 
  will 
  gives 
  those 
  institutions 
  a 
  chance 
  to 
  think 
  about 
  what 
  
they 
  would 
  do 
  in 
  similar 
  circumstances. 
  Considering 
  in 
  advance 
  will 
  allow 
  them 
  to 
  discover 
  how 
  
their 
  policies 
  will 
  work 
  and 
  whether 
  the 
  people 
  responsible 
  for 
  them 
  have 
  the 
  knowledge 
  and 
  
resources 
  they 
  need. 
   
  
Going 
  by 
  what 
  is 
  on 
  paper 
  is 
  not 
  enough. 
  Written 
  policies 
  and 
  procedures 
  do 
  not 
  tell 
  us 
  what 
  really 
  
happens 
  in 
  practice, 
  particularly 
  in 
  a 
  crisis. 
  Very 
  often, 
  weaknesses 
  in 
  an 
  institutional 
  response 
  
turn 
  out 
  to 
  be 
  about 
  how 
  a 
  policy 
  was 
  understood 
  and 
  applied, 
  not 
  how 
  it 
  was 
  worded. 
  That 
  was 
  
mostly 
  the 
  case 
  here. 
  
Many 
  of 
  the 
  questions 
  about 
  the 
  University’s 
  response 
  to 
  the 
  Facebook 
  postings 
  centred 
  on 
  the 
  
fairness 
  of 
  the 
  processes 
  it 
  invoked. 
  An 
  institution’s 
  response 
  to 
  allegations 
  of 
  misconduct 
  must 
  
not 
  only 
  be 
  fair, 
  it 
  must 
  be 
  seen 
  to 
  be 
  fair. 
  That 
  applies 
  to 
  the 
  processes 
  as 
  well 
  as 
  the 
  outcomes. 
  
Even 
  when 
  the 
  “right” 
  outcome 
  is 
  reached, 
  people 
  will 
  feel 
  that 
  justice 
  was 
  not 
  served 
  if 
  the 
  
process 
  was 
  not 
  fair. 
   
  
What 
  is 
  a 
  fair 
  process? 
  It 
  depends. 
  Generally, 
  the 
  more 
  serious 
  the 
  potential 
  consequences 
  (jail 
  
time 
  versus 
  a 
  fine, 
  loss 
  of 
  a 
  licence 
  to 
  practice 
  versus 
  temporary 
  limitations) 
  the 
  more 
  stringent 
  
the 
  procedural 
  protections 
  must 
  be. 
  However, 
  all 
  decision-­‐makers 
  who 
  are 
  legally 
  empowered 
  to 
  
affect 
  people’s 
  rights 
  must 
  follow 
  a 
  process 
  that 
  contains 
  the 
  following 
  six 
  elements: 
   
  

 
  

48 
    
  

 1. Notice 
   
  
All 
  affected 
  individuals 
  are 
  entitled 
  to 
  know 
  what 
  the 
  allegations 
  are 
  and 
  to 
  know 
  what 
  
policies 
  and 
  procedures 
  will 
  govern 
  the 
  situation. 
  They 
  are 
  entitled 
  to 
  this 
  information 
  
before 
  any 
  steps 
  are 
  taken 
  under 
  the 
  applicable 
  policies 
  (except 
  where 
  there 
  is 
  a 
  good 
  
reason 
  for 
  acting 
  sooner; 
  a 
  safety 
  risk, 
  for 
  example), 
  with 
  enough 
  time 
  so 
  they 
  can 
  be 
  
prepared 
  to 
  participate. 
  If 
  there 
  is 
  a 
  change 
  in 
  the 
  applicable 
  policy 
  or 
  process, 
  they 
  are 
  
entitled 
  to 
  know 
  what 
  the 
  change 
  is 
  and 
  why 
  it 
  is 
  happening. 
  What 
  is 
  adequate 
  notice 
  will 
  
depend 
  on 
  the 
  kind 
  of 
  proceeding. 
   
  
2. Free 
  and 
  informed 
  consent 
   
  
Where 
  a 
  policy 
  permits 
  people 
  to 
  choose 
  whether 
  to 
  participate 
  in 
  a 
  voluntary 
  process 
  (for 
  
example, 
  mediation 
  or 
  RJ) 
  they 
  are 
  entitled 
  to 
  the 
  information 
  they 
  need 
  to 
  make 
  an 
  
informed 
  decision. 
  This 
  includes 
  what 
  the 
  process 
  entails, 
  what 
  consequences 
  will 
  flow 
  
from 
  it, 
  and 
  what 
  the 
  alternatives 
  are. 
  They 
  are 
  entitled 
  to 
  a 
  reasonable 
  amount 
  of 
  time 
  to 
  
decide 
  whether 
  to 
  participate 
  and 
  to 
  be 
  free 
  of 
  pressure 
  to 
  decide 
  in 
  a 
  particular 
  way. 
  
How 
  much 
  information 
  and 
  how 
  much 
  time 
  will 
  depend 
  on 
  the 
  kind 
  of 
  proceeding. 
  
3. Transparency 
  
The 
  public 
  is 
  entitled 
  to 
  know 
  the 
  policies 
  and 
  procedures 
  that 
  apply 
  to 
  the 
  situation. 
  This 
  
does 
  not 
  mean 
  disclosure 
  of 
  all 
  information 
  or 
  even 
  of 
  the 
  identities 
  of 
  participants. 
  There 
  
are 
  often 
  good 
  reasons 
  for 
  maintaining 
  confidentiality, 
  especially 
  early 
  on 
  in 
  a 
  process. 
  
However, 
  transparency 
  requires 
  that 
  the 
  public 
  has 
  enough 
  information 
  about 
  the 
  process 
  
to 
  be 
  confident 
  that 
  it 
  is 
  the 
  right 
  response 
  for 
  the 
  situation. 
  Transparency 
  also 
  usually 
  
requires 
  decision-­‐makers 
  to 
  give 
  reasons 
  for 
  their 
  decisions. 
  Participants 
  and 
  the 
  public 
  
may 
  not 
  agree 
  with 
  the 
  outcome, 
  but 
  they 
  are 
  entitled 
  to 
  know 
  how 
  the 
  decision-­‐maker 
  
arrived 
  at 
  the 
  decision. 
  The 
  level 
  of 
  detail 
  about 
  the 
  process 
  and 
  the 
  reasons 
  vary 
  with 
  the 
  
type 
  of 
  proceeding. 
   
  
4. Opportunity 
  to 
  be 
  heard 
  
Individuals 
  who 
  may 
  be 
  adversely 
  affected 
  by 
  the 
  process 
  are 
  entitled 
  to 
  present 
  relevant 
  
information 
  and 
  their 
  perspectives 
  to 
  a 
  decision-­‐maker 
  before 
  the 
  decision. 
  How 
  they 
  do 
  
that, 
  including 
  how 
  much 
  time 
  they 
  have 
  and 
  whether 
  they 
  can 
  be 
  represented 
  by 
  a 
  
lawyer, 
  vary 
  depending 
  on 
  the 
  proceeding. 
   
  
5. Impartiality: 
   
  
Decision-­‐makers 
  must 
  be, 
  and 
  must 
  be 
  seen 
  to 
  be, 
  impartial 
  and 
  objective. 
  Participants 
  
and 
  the 
  public 
  must 
  be 
  confident 
  that 
  the 
  decision-­‐maker 
  has 
  no 
  personal 
  stake 
  in 
  the 
  
outcome. 
  Depending 
  on 
  the 
  type 
  of 
  proceeding, 
  the 
  decision-­‐maker 
  may 
  have 
  relevant 
  
knowledge 
  or 
  expertise, 
  but 
  cannot 
  have 
  any 
  personal 
  interest. 
   
  
6. Certainty: 
   
  
Both 
  affected 
  individuals 
  and 
  the 
  public 
  are 
  entitled 
  to 
  rely 
  on 
  the 
  information 
  they 
  are 
  
given 
  about 
  the 
  applicable 
  processes 
  and 
  the 
  range 
  of 
  possible 
  outcomes, 
  and 
  to 
  know 
  
that 
  those 
  processes 
  will 
  not 
  change 
  mid-­‐stream. 
   
  

 
  

49 
    
  

 If 
  any 
  of 
  these 
  elements 
  are 
  not 
  met, 
  the 
  process 
  may 
  be 
  perceived 
  as 
  unfair. 
   
  
A 
  policy 
  may 
  seem 
  fair 
  on 
  paper, 
  but 
  may 
  not 
  be 
  applied 
  fairly, 
  especially 
  in 
  a 
  crisis. 
  Understanding 
  
how 
  the 
  processes 
  used 
  in 
  a 
  situation 
  were 
  perceived 
  as 
  unfair 
  helps 
  administrators 
  and 
  decision-­‐
makers 
  improve 
  them 
  in 
  the 
  future. 
   
  
The 
  following 
  chronology 
  of 
  key 
  events 
  in 
  the 
  policy 
  responses 
  to 
  the 
  Facebook 
  incident 
  gives 
  
context 
  for 
  assessing 
  procedural 
  fairness. 
  Decisions 
  made 
  during 
  the 
  process 
  are 
  highlighted 
  in 
  
bold. 
   
  
December 
  8, 
  2014: 
  

Student 
  A 
  discloses 
  the 
  screenshot 
  she 
  took 
  of 
  the 
  hate 
  fuck/sport 
  fuck 
  
post 
  to 
  an 
  assistant 
  dean 
  at 
  Dentistry 
  and 
  to 
  the 
  Acting 
  Vice-­‐Provost 
  of 
  
Student 
  Affairs 
  ( 
  Vice-­‐Provost). 
  Student 
  A 
  wants 
  to 
  make 
  a 
  formal 
  
complaint 
  under 
  the 
  University’s 
  Student 
  Code 
  of 
  Conduct 
  (Code). 
  The 
  
Vice-­‐Provost 
  does 
  not 
  accept 
  the 
  complaint 
  under 
  the 
  Code, 
  but 
  says 
  
she 
  will 
  get 
  back 
  to 
  Student 
  A 
  about 
  the 
  appropriate 
  process. 
  

 
  

Student 
  A 
  and 
  three 
  other 
  female 
  students 
  named 
  in 
  the 
  hate 
  fuck/sport 
  
fuck 
  post 
  meet 
  with 
  an 
  assistant 
  dean 
  at 
  Dentistry. 
  They 
  disclose 
  the 
  
screenshot 
  and 
  express 
  concern 
  about 
  professionalism, 
  culture 
  and 
  
climate 
  in 
  Dentistry. 
  

 
  

The 
  Vice-­‐Provost 
  meets 
  with 
  security 
  services 
  personnel 
  and 
  discloses 
  
the 
  screenshot 
  to 
  them. 
  They 
  identify 
  five 
  women 
  and 
  nine 
  men. 
   
  

December 
  9, 
  2014: 
  

The 
  Vice-­‐Provost 
  convenes 
  a 
  student-­‐in-­‐crisis 
  team 
  meeting 
  to 
  consider 
  
whether 
  there 
  is 
  a 
  safety 
  risk 
  to 
  anyone 
  on 
  campus. 
  The 
  team 
  does 
  not 
  
identify 
  a 
  risk, 
  so 
  the 
  Vice-­‐Provost 
  decides 
  not 
  to 
  initiate 
  a 
  process 
  to 
  
suspend 
  the 
  identified 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  under 
  the 
  Code. 
   
  

 
  

The 
  Vice-­‐Provost 
  decides 
  that 
  Student 
  A’s 
  complaint 
  falls 
  under 
  the 
  
University’s 
  Sexual 
  Harassment 
  Policy 
  (Policy), 
  not 
  the 
  Code, 
  and 
  directs 
  
Student 
  A 
  to 
  the 
  HREHP, 
  which 
  is 
  responsible 
  for 
  complaints 
  under 
  the 
  
Policy. 
  Student 
  A 
  contacts 
  the 
  HREHP. 
  The 
  HREHP 
  determines 
  that 
  the 
  
situation 
  is 
  not 
  an 
  emergency 
  or 
  high 
  risk. 
  HREHP 
  staff 
  and 
  Student 
  A 
  
set 
  up 
  a 
  meeting 
  for 
  December 
  12. 
   
  

December 
  10, 
  2014: 
   
  

Dentistry 
  and 
  Student 
  A 
  agree 
  that 
  she 
  will 
  take 
  her 
  exam 
  in 
  a 
  room 
  
separate 
  from 
  the 
  rest 
  of 
  the 
  students 
  (including 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posters). 
  

December 
  12, 
  2014 
  

Student 
  A 
  meets 
  with 
  HREHP 
  staff, 
  the 
  Community 
  Safety 
  officer, 
  and 
  a 
  
female 
  assistant 
  dean 
  from 
  Dentistry. 
  The 
  Policy’s 
  formal 
  and 
  informal 
  
complaint 
  processes 
  are 
  explained. 
  Student 
  A 
  says 
  her 
  complaint 
  
includes 
  allegations 
  of 
  harassment 
  and 
  bullying 
  over 
  time 
  and 
  wants 
  a 
  
formal 
  complaint 
  process. 
   
  

 
  

50 
    
  

  
  

Student 
  A 
  provides 
  the 
  Community 
  Safety 
  officer 
  with 
  54 
  screenshots 
  
from 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group 
  as 
  evidence 
  to 
  support 
  her 
  complaint. 
  Thirteen 
  
male 
  posters 
  and 
  10 
  female 
  students 
  are 
  identified. 
   
  

December 
  15, 
  2014 
  

Many 
  of 
  the 
  screenshots 
  are 
  published 
  in 
  the 
  media. 
  The 
  President 
  says 
  
the 
  University 
  needs 
  48 
  hours 
  to 
  consider 
  how 
  best 
  to 
  address 
  the 
  
allegations. 
   
  

 
  

Central 
  administration 
  and 
  Dentistry 
  administration 
  meet 
  to 
  discuss 
  what 
  
processes 
  should 
  be 
  invoked. 
   
  

 
  

Dentistry 
  defers 
  the 
  remaining 
  exams 
  for 
  DDS 
  4 
  students 
  until 
  January. 
   
  

December 
  16, 
  2014 
  

HREHP 
  staff 
  and 
  Dentistry 
  administrators 
  meet 
  with 
  four 
  of 
  the 
  female 
  
students 
  named 
  in 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  (not 
  including 
  Student 
  A) 
  to 
  
explain 
  the 
  formal 
  and 
  informal 
  process 
  options 
  under 
  the 
  Policy. 
  The 
  
informal 
  process 
  described 
  is 
  a 
  restorative 
  justice 
  process 
  (RJ). 
  They 
  
understand 
  these 
  students 
  to 
  say 
  that 
  they 
  want 
  to 
  pursue 
  RJ 
  and 
  that 
  
they 
  do 
  not 
  have 
  safety 
  concerns 
  about 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posters. 
  

 
  

HREHP 
  staff 
  meet 
  with 
  12 
  of 
  the 
  13 
  identified 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  and 
  
meet 
  separately 
  with 
  Student 
  B, 
  “the 
  Whistleblower” 
  who 
  permitted 
  
Student 
  A 
  to 
  take 
  the 
  initial 
  and 
  subsequent 
  screenshots 
  from 
  his 
  
computer. 
  They 
  tell 
  them 
  that 
  the 
  female 
  students 
  want 
  an 
  RJ 
  process 
  
and 
  the 
  men 
  agree. 
   
  

 
  

One 
  member 
  of 
  the 
  HREHP 
  staff 
  who 
  had 
  been 
  involved 
  with 
  the 
  issue 
  
since 
  December 
  12 
  and 
  the 
  Community 
  Safety 
  Officer 
  become 
  the 
  two 
  RJ 
  
facilitators. 
  They 
  invite 
  the 
  fourth-­‐year 
  students 
  to 
  a 
  meeting, 
  where 
  
they 
  provide 
  information, 
  discuss 
  concerns, 
  and 
  offer 
  support. 
  

December 
  17, 
  2014 
  

The 
  President 
  announces 
  that 
  a 
  number 
  of 
  the 
  women 
  targeted 
  in 
  the 
  
Facebook 
  posts 
  have 
  chosen 
  to 
  pursue 
  RJ 
  under 
  the 
  Policy, 
  and 
  this 
  
process 
  has 
  already 
  started. 
  He 
  says 
  that 
  others 
  may 
  pursue 
  a 
  formal 
  
complaint 
  under 
  the 
  Policy, 
  and 
  that 
  various 
  disciplinary 
  actions 
  are 
  also 
  
available. 
   
  

 
  

The 
  RJ 
  facilitators 
  meet 
  with 
  the 
  female 
  students 
  who 
  have 
  chosen 
  to 
  
pursue 
  RJ. 
  In 
  small 
  groups, 
  they 
  also 
  explain 
  the 
  RJ 
  process 
  to 
  and 
  
interview 
  12 
  of 
  the 
  13 
  identified 
  Facebook 
  posters. 
  

December 
  18, 
  2014 
  

The 
  RJ 
  facilitators 
  meet 
  with 
  Student 
  B, 
  explain 
  the 
  RJ 
  process, 
  and 
  
interview 
  him. 
  

December 
  21, 
  2014 
  

Four 
  faculty 
  members 
  outside 
  Dentistry 
  file 
  a 
  complaint 
  with 
  the 
  Vice-­‐
Provost 
  requesting 
  an 
  investigation 
  and 
  suspension 
  of 
  the 
  Facebook 
  
posters 
  pursuant 
  to 
  the 
  Code 
  (Dalhousie 
  Faculty 
  Complaint). 
   
  

 
  

51 
    
  

 December 
  22, 
  2014 
  

Dentistry’s 
  Clinic 
  Assistant 
  Dean 
  decides 
  to 
  suspend 
  from 
  the 
  Clinic 
  
indefinitely 
  the 
  13 
  identified 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  under 
  the 
  Clinic 
  Policy, 
  
and 
  to 
  not 
  inform 
  these 
  individuals 
  about 
  the 
  suspension 
  until 
  January 
  5, 
  
2015 
  because 
  of 
  concerns 
  about 
  their 
  mental 
  well-­‐being. 
   
  

December 
  23, 
  2014 
  

The 
  Vice-­‐Provost 
  officially 
  acknowledges 
  receipt 
  of 
  the 
  Dalhousie 
  Faculty 
  
Complaint. 
  

Christmas 
  Break: 
  December 
  23 
  -­‐ 
  January 
  4 
  
January 
  5, 
  2015 
  

The 
  13 
  identified 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  are 
  formally 
  notified 
  of 
  their 
  
suspensions 
  from 
  the 
  Clinic. 
   
  

 
  

RJ 
  facilitators 
  meet 
  separately 
  with 
  the 
  fourth-­‐year 
  women 
  and 
  men. 
  
Those 
  who 
  wish 
  to 
  participate 
  in 
  RJ 
  are 
  asked 
  to 
  sign 
  confidentiality 
  
agreements 
  by 
  January 
  9. 
  

January 
  6, 
  2015 
  

Dentistry’s 
  Academic 
  Standards 
  Class 
  Committee 
  (ASCC) 
  confirms 
  the 
  
Clinic 
  Assistant 
  Dean’s 
  decision 
  to 
  suspend 
  the 
  13 
  identified 
  Facebook 
  
posters 
  indefinitely 
  and 
  issues 
  special 
  procedures 
  for 
  how 
  the 
  
suspensions 
  will 
  be 
  reviewed. 
  January 
  8 
  is 
  to 
  be 
  the 
  deadline 
  for 
  formally 
  
objecting 
  to 
  suspension. 
  The 
  special 
  procedures 
  provide 
  that, 
  if 
  a 
  
Facebook 
  poster 
  completes 
  RJ 
  successfully, 
  the 
  ASCC 
  will 
  only 
  consider 
  
whether 
  further 
  remediation 
  is 
  necessary. 
  For 
  those 
  not 
  in 
  RJ, 
  academic 
  
dismissal 
  is 
  a 
  possible 
  consequence. 
   
  

January 
  8, 
  2015 
  

Student 
  B 
  files 
  a 
  formal 
  objection 
  under 
  the 
  ASCC’s 
  special 
  procedures. 
   
  

 
  

The 
  ASCC 
  requires 
  all 
  suspended 
  students 
  to 
  attend 
  classes 
  remotely, 
  
but 
  does 
  not 
  prohibit 
  them 
  from 
  being 
  present 
  in 
  the 
  dentistry 
  building. 
   
  

January 
  10, 
  2015 
  

The 
  Vice-­‐Provost 
  rejects 
  the 
  Dalhousie 
  Faculty 
  Complaint 
  on 
  the 
  basis 
  
that 
  the 
  conduct 
  of 
  the 
  identified 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  was 
  already 
  under 
  
review 
  by 
  the 
  ASCC 
  when 
  the 
  complaint 
  was 
  made. 
   
  

January 
  12, 
  2015 
  

The 
  University’s 
  Senate 
  debates 
  whether 
  the 
  ASCC 
  should 
  review 
  the 
  
conduct 
  of 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  or 
  whether 
  a 
  process 
  external 
  to 
  
Dentistry 
  is 
  necessary. 
  Debate 
  is 
  suspended 
  and 
  a 
  special 
  meeting 
  is 
  
scheduled 
  for 
  January 
  19. 
  

January 
  14, 
  2015 
  

The 
  ASCC 
  informs 
  Student 
  B 
  that 
  his 
  hearing 
  will 
  be 
  on 
  January 
  20 
  and 
  
provides 
  notice 
  of 
  questions 
  he 
  will 
  be 
  required 
  to 
  answer. 
  The 
  issues 
  are 
  
whether 
  he 
  has 
  engaged 
  in 
  unprofessional 
  conduct, 
  and 
  if 
  so, 
  whether 
  
remediation 
  or 
  academic 
  dismissal 
  is 
  warranted. 
   
  

January 
  19, 
  2015 
  

The 
  Senate 
  meeting 
  resumes. 
  It 
  is 
  held 
  in 
  private 
  over 
  the 
  objection 
  of 
  
some 
  senators. 
  Motions 
  to 
  commence 
  an 
  investigation 
  external 
  to 
  
Dentistry 
  and 
  to 
  remove 
  review 
  of 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posters’ 
  conduct 
  from 
  
the 
  ASCC 
  to 
  a 
  body 
  external 
  to 
  Dentistry 
  fail 
  to 
  pass. 
   
  

 
  

52 
    
  

 January 
  20, 
  2015 
  

Student 
  B’s 
  hearing 
  before 
  the 
  ASCC 
  commences 
  and 
  is 
  conducted 
  in 
  
private, 
  over 
  Student 
  B’s 
  objection. 
  The 
  Clinic 
  Assistant 
  Dean 
  is 
  
represented 
  by 
  external 
  counsel. 
   
  

January 
  28, 
  2015 
  

Student 
  B’s 
  hearing 
  concludes. 
  

March 
  2, 
  2015 
  

The 
  ASCC 
  lifts 
  the 
  suspensions 
  of 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  in 
  RJ 
  and 
  
permits 
  them 
  to 
  return 
  to 
  the 
  Clinic 
  on 
  stipulated 
  conditions. 
  

March 
  6, 
  2015 
  

The 
  ASCC 
  releases 
  its 
  decision 
  on 
  Student 
  B, 
  finding 
  that 
  he 
  engaged 
  in 
  
unprofessional 
  conduct 
  and 
  imposing 
  remediation 
  requirements 
  that 
  
he 
  must 
  complete 
  before 
  his 
  suspension 
  is 
  lifted 
  and 
  he 
  can 
  return 
  to 
  
the 
  Clinic. 
  

May 
  22, 
  2015 
  

The 
  RJ 
  Report 
  is 
  publicly 
  released. 
  It 
  includes 
  factual 
  findings 
  from 
  an 
  
investigation 
  conducted 
  by 
  the 
  RJ 
  facilitators 
  during 
  the 
  RJ 
  process. 
   
  

The 
  chronology 
  raises 
  the 
  following 
  fairness 
  questions: 
  
1. What 
  information 
  is 
  necessary 
  to 
  decide 
  whether 
  there 
  is 
  a 
  safety 
  risk 
  or 
  other 
  basis 
  for 
  
interim 
  action? 
   
  
2. Who 
  decides 
  what 
  policy 
  applies 
  and 
  what 
  the 
  relevant 
  considerations 
  are? 
  What 
  happens 
  
when 
  affected 
  people 
  want 
  different 
  processes? 
  Can 
  there 
  be 
  multiple 
  processes 
  at 
  the 
  
same 
  time? 
   
  
3. If 
  a 
  process 
  is 
  voluntary, 
  to 
  what 
  information 
  are 
  potential 
  participants 
  entitled 
  before 
  
agreeing 
  to 
  participate? 
  What 
  does 
  “voluntary” 
  mean? 
   
  
4. Can 
  policies 
  and 
  processes 
  be 
  combined 
  or 
  customized 
  to 
  suit 
  a 
  particular 
  situation 
  or 
  
should 
  standard 
  processes 
  always 
  be 
  followed? 
   
  
5. How 
  should 
  concerns 
  about 
  conflict 
  of 
  interest 
  be 
  addressed? 
   
  
These 
  kinds 
  of 
  questions 
  underlie 
  many 
  decision-­‐making 
  processes 
  that 
  address 
  alleged 
  
misconduct. 
  Sometimes, 
  many 
  or 
  all 
  of 
  the 
  answers 
  are 
  found 
  in 
  the 
  policies 
  and 
  procedures 
  
themselves. 
  Where 
  this 
  is 
  the 
  case, 
  the 
  process 
  is 
  not 
  controversial, 
  although 
  the 
  outcome 
  or 
  
decision 
  might 
  be. 
  Here, 
  questions 
  about 
  the 
  process 
  were 
  very 
  controversial 
  and 
  almost 
  
overshadowed 
  the 
  outcomes. 
  There 
  was 
  a 
  perception 
  that 
  those 
  in 
  charge 
  were 
  not 
  sure 
  what 
  to 
  
do 
  and 
  were 
  adapting 
  and 
  creating 
  processes 
  on 
  the 
  fly. 
  This 
  raised 
  questions 
  about 
  all 
  six 
  aspects 
  
of 
  fairness 
  described 
  above. 
   
  
In 
  considering 
  the 
  decisions 
  made, 
  our 
  aim 
  is 
  not 
  to 
  say 
  whether 
  the 
  decisions 
  were 
  right 
  or 
  
wrong, 
  but 
  rather 
  to 
  consider 
  whether 
  the 
  process 
  for 
  making 
  them 
  was 
  fair. 
   
  

 
  

53 
    
  

 1. What 
  information 
  is 
  necessary 
  to 
  decide 
  whether 
  there 
  is 
  a 
  safety 
  risk 
  or 
  other 
  basis 
  for 
  
interim 
  action? 
  
The 
  general 
  principle 
  is 
  that 
  interim 
  action 
  is 
  not 
  justified 
  unless 
  there 
  is 
  good 
  evidence 
  of 
  a 
  real 
  
need 
  for 
  it. 
  This 
  is 
  because 
  affected 
  persons 
  likely 
  have 
  not 
  been 
  notified, 
  have 
  not 
  had 
  an 
  
opportunity 
  to 
  be 
  heard, 
  and 
  there 
  has 
  not 
  been 
  much 
  time 
  to 
  gather 
  information. 
  Because 
  
interim 
  action 
  is 
  exceptional, 
  the 
  power 
  to 
  take 
  it 
  should 
  be 
  expressly 
  conferred. 
  A 
  demonstrated 
  
safety 
  risk 
  justifies 
  interim 
  action. 
   
  
A 
  number 
  of 
  interim 
  decisions 
  were 
  made 
  here. 
  On 
  December 
  9, 
  the 
  Vice-­‐Provost 
  decided 
  not 
  to 
  
place 
  the 
  identified 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  under 
  interim 
  suspension. 
  The 
  HREHP 
  also 
  considered 
  this 
  
issue 
  on 
  the 
  same 
  day 
  and 
  reached 
  the 
  same 
  conclusion. 
  On 
  December 
  15, 
  Dentistry 
  decided 
  to 
  
postpone 
  fourth-­‐year 
  exams. 
  On 
  December 
  22, 
  the 
  Clinic 
  Assistant 
  Dean 
  decided 
  to 
  indefinitely 
  
suspend 
  the 
  identified 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  from 
  the 
  Clinic, 
  and 
  also 
  decided 
  not 
  to 
  inform 
  those 
  
students 
  about 
  the 
  suspension 
  until 
  January 
  5. 
  On 
  January 
  8, 
  the 
  ASCC 
  decided 
  that 
  these 
  students 
  
could 
  not 
  attend 
  classes 
  in 
  person. 
  
The 
  Vice-­‐Provost’s 
  decision 
  not 
  to 
  suspend 
  the 
  identified 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  was 
  made 
  through 
  a 
  
student-­‐in-­‐crisis 
  team 
  process. 
  We 
  were 
  told 
  that 
  this 
  was 
  a 
  mechanism 
  put 
  in 
  place 
  by 
  the 
  
University 
  several 
  years 
  ago 
  to 
  address 
  situations 
  where 
  a 
  student 
  is 
  at 
  risk 
  of 
  self-­‐harm 
  or 
  poses 
  a 
  
threat 
  to 
  the 
  University 
  community. 
  The 
  team 
  includes 
  security, 
  mental 
  health, 
  student 
  service 
  
and 
  legal 
  personnel. 
  It 
  meets 
  when 
  called 
  upon 
  by 
  the 
  Vice-­‐Provost 
  and 
  takes 
  action 
  as 
  needed 
  in 
  
response 
  to 
  concerns 
  brought 
  to 
  the 
  attention 
  of 
  administration 
  that 
  are 
  not 
  the 
  subject 
  of 
  a 
  
complaint 
  or 
  covered 
  by 
  another 
  policy. 
  The 
  team 
  may 
  access 
  personal 
  information, 
  such 
  as 
  
medical 
  records, 
  that 
  is 
  otherwise 
  confidential. 
  If 
  the 
  team 
  determines 
  that 
  an 
  interim 
  suspension 
  
is 
  necessary, 
  the 
  director 
  of 
  security 
  services 
  will 
  file 
  a 
  complaint 
  under 
  the 
  Code, 
  triggering 
  the 
  
President’s 
  power 
  to 
  issue 
  the 
  suspension. 
  There 
  is 
  no 
  written 
  document 
  setting 
  out 
  the 
  
membership, 
  powers, 
  or 
  accountability 
  of 
  this 
  body. 
  However, 
  we 
  were 
  told 
  that 
  one 
  is 
  being 
  
drafted. 
   
  
A 
  university 
  may 
  need 
  to 
  have 
  a 
  body 
  able 
  to 
  respond 
  to 
  situations 
  where 
  a 
  student 
  is 
  in 
  crisis, 
  and 
  
fairness 
  requirements 
  are 
  different 
  for 
  emergencies. 
  However, 
  the 
  fact 
  that 
  this 
  body 
  has 
  existed 
  
for 
  years 
  without 
  any 
  written 
  authority 
  raises 
  questions 
  about 
  fairness. 
  Decisions 
  to 
  invoke 
  it 
  and 
  
decisions 
  made 
  under 
  it 
  will 
  appear 
  arbitrary. 
  For 
  example, 
  why 
  did 
  the 
  Vice-­‐Provost 
  not 
  accept 
  
Student 
  A’s 
  complaint 
  under 
  the 
  Code? 
  Why 
  did 
  she 
  use 
  the 
  student-­‐in-­‐crisis 
  process? 
  Accepting 
  
the 
  Code 
  complaint 
  would 
  have 
  made 
  it 
  possible 
  to 
  consider 
  interim 
  suspension 
  under 
  the 
  Code. 
  
The 
  HREHP 
  also 
  considered 
  whether 
  the 
  situation 
  was 
  an 
  emergency 
  or 
  high 
  risk 
  right 
  after 
  
Student 
  A 
  contacted 
  it. 
  The 
  Policy 
  permits 
  the 
  university 
  to 
  take 
  interim 
  measures 
  where 
  
necessary 
  at 
  any 
  time 
  during 
  the 
  processing 
  of 
  a 
  complaint, 
  so 
  why 
  was 
  the 
  student-­‐in-­‐crisis 
  
process 
  necessary? 
  These 
  questions 
  are 
  particularly 
  troubling 
  because 
  we 
  were 
  told 
  that 
  the 
  
student-­‐in-­‐crisis 
  process 
  applies 
  only 
  where 
  there 
  is 
  an 
  urgent 
  need 
  for 
  action 
  and 
  no 
  other 
  
applicable 
  policy. 
  The 
  documentation 
  of 
  this 
  process, 
  now 
  being 
  drafted, 
  must 
  contain 
  a 
  
mechanism 
  to 
  ensure 
  that 
  it 
  is 
  only 
  invoked 
  where 
  it 
  is 
  authorized. 
  Without 
  a 
  written 
  process, 
  
there 
  is 
  no 
  transparency. 
  

 
  

54 
    
  

 Putting 
  aside 
  the 
  question 
  of 
  the 
  source 
  of 
  her 
  authority 
  to 
  act, 
  from 
  a 
  fairness 
  perspective, 
  the 
  
Vice-­‐Provost 
  followed 
  the 
  right 
  steps 
  in 
  considering 
  whether 
  interim 
  action 
  was 
  necessary. 
  First, 
  it 
  
was 
  reasonable 
  to 
  consider 
  whether 
  the 
  screenshot 
  created 
  a 
  need 
  for 
  interim 
  action, 
  and 
  it 
  was 
  
appropriate 
  to 
  consult 
  with 
  experts 
  and 
  gather 
  available 
  information 
  before 
  making 
  the 
  decision. 
  
Fairness 
  does 
  not 
  require 
  notice, 
  informed 
  consent, 
  or 
  an 
  opportunity 
  to 
  be 
  heard 
  in 
  such 
  
situations. 
  Had 
  the 
  Vice-­‐Provost 
  decided 
  that 
  there 
  was 
  a 
  safety 
  risk 
  that 
  warranted 
  a 
  suspension, 
  
the 
  consequences 
  of 
  that 
  decision 
  would 
  have 
  triggered 
  other 
  fairness 
  requirements, 
  including 
  the 
  
need 
  to 
  notify 
  the 
  suspended 
  students 
  and 
  to 
  revisit 
  or 
  review 
  the 
  decision 
  after 
  hearing 
  from 
  
them. 
   
  
Dentistry 
  decided 
  to 
  postpone 
  fourth-­‐year 
  exams 
  until 
  January 
  on 
  the 
  day 
  the 
  story 
  broke 
  in 
  the 
  
media, 
  without 
  notice 
  to 
  the 
  students. 
  Whether 
  such 
  an 
  action 
  is 
  fair 
  depends 
  on 
  the 
  reasons 
  for 
  it 
  
and 
  the 
  consequences 
  for 
  the 
  people 
  affected. 
  Dentistry 
  may 
  have 
  been 
  concerned 
  about 
  the 
  
impact 
  of 
  the 
  media 
  stories 
  on 
  the 
  students’ 
  ability 
  to 
  focus 
  on 
  exams 
  and 
  considered 
  that 
  
deferring 
  them 
  was 
  in 
  the 
  students’ 
  best 
  interest, 
  but 
  we 
  do 
  not 
  know 
  the 
  reasons 
  for 
  its 
  decision. 
  
Some 
  of 
  students 
  said 
  that 
  they 
  felt 
  that 
  they 
  were 
  being 
  punished 
  unfairly 
  for 
  the 
  actions 
  of 
  the 
  
Facebook 
  posters. 
  Postponement 
  created 
  more 
  work 
  and 
  more 
  pressure 
  (because 
  of 
  the 
  board 
  
exam 
  schedule). 
  Transparency 
  would 
  require 
  the 
  students 
  to 
  be 
  given 
  a 
  reason 
  for 
  the 
  decision. 
  
Certainty 
  would 
  require 
  that 
  they 
  be 
  given 
  information 
  about 
  new 
  dates 
  (or 
  at 
  least 
  a 
  date 
  by 
  
which 
  new 
  dates 
  would 
  be 
  announced). 
  It 
  is 
  not 
  clear 
  that 
  this 
  was 
  done. 
  
The 
  Clinic 
  Assistant 
  Dean’s 
  decision 
  to 
  suspend 
  the 
  identified 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  from 
  the 
  Clinic 
  
may 
  appear 
  inconsistent 
  with 
  the 
  earlier 
  determinations 
  that 
  there 
  was 
  no 
  safety 
  risk. 
  But 
  by 
  this 
  
time, 
  many 
  more 
  screenshots 
  had 
  been 
  published 
  in 
  the 
  media 
  and 
  there 
  was 
  public 
  debate 
  about 
  
whether 
  the 
  posters’ 
  conduct 
  posed 
  a 
  safety 
  risk. 
  In 
  his 
  letters 
  to 
  students 
  announcing 
  his 
  decision 
  
to 
  suspend 
  them, 
  the 
  Clinic 
  Assistant 
  Dean 
  said 
  he 
  had 
  reviewed 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  and 
  
consulted 
  with 
  members 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  administration. 
  There 
  is 
  no 
  evidence 
  that 
  he 
  contacted 
  the 
  
Vice-­‐Provost 
  or 
  the 
  HREHP 
  about 
  the 
  information 
  they 
  had 
  and 
  the 
  decisions 
  they 
  had 
  made 
  not 
  
to 
  suspend. 
  This 
  is 
  unfortunate. 
  Consistency 
  enhances 
  fairness. 
  The 
  Clinic 
  Assistant 
  Dean 
  may 
  have 
  
had 
  good 
  reasons 
  to 
  suspend 
  the 
  students, 
  but 
  the 
  perception 
  of 
  fairness 
  would 
  have 
  been 
  
enhanced 
  if 
  he 
  had 
  taken 
  into 
  account 
  the 
  earlier 
  decisions 
  not 
  to 
  do 
  so. 
   
  
It 
  is 
  entirely 
  possible 
  that 
  the 
  Clinic 
  Assistant 
  Dean 
  did 
  not 
  know 
  about 
  the 
  option 
  to 
  consider 
  
interim 
  action 
  under 
  the 
  student-­‐in-­‐crisis 
  process 
  or 
  the 
  Policy, 
  and 
  that 
  neither 
  the 
  Vice-­‐Provost 
  
nor 
  the 
  HREHP 
  were 
  aware 
  that 
  the 
  Clinic 
  Assistant 
  Dean 
  had 
  the 
  power 
  to 
  suspend 
  under 
  the 
  
Clinic 
  Policy. 
  This 
  is 
  common 
  in 
  large 
  institutions 
  with 
  many 
  policies. 
  However, 
  given 
  the 
  gravity 
  of 
  
interim 
  action, 
  fairness 
  would 
  be 
  enhanced 
  by 
  ensuring 
  better 
  awareness 
  and 
  communication 
  
among 
  decision-­‐makers 
  who 
  have 
  the 
  power 
  to 
  make 
  interim 
  suspension 
  decisions. 
   
  
In 
  his 
  decision 
  letter 
  to 
  the 
  suspended 
  students, 
  which 
  he 
  gave 
  them 
  on 
  January 
  5, 
  the 
  Clinic 
  
Assistant 
  Dean 
  referred 
  to 
  the 
  source 
  of 
  his 
  authority 
  to 
  suspend 
  clinic 
  privileges 
  as 
  the 
  Clinic 
  
Policy 
  and 
  Procedures 
  Manual. 
  The 
  relevant 
  section 
  states: 
   
  

 
  

55 
    
  

 Suspension 
  of 
  Privileges 
  
If 
  in 
  the 
  judgment 
  of 
  the 
  Assistant 
  Dean 
  Clinics 
  and 
  Building 
  services, 
  based 
  on 
  
communications 
  from 
  supervising 
  faculty, 
  course 
  directors, 
  clinical 
  support 
  staff 
  and 
  
chart 
  audits, 
  a 
  student’s 
  conduct 
  or 
  treatment 
  of 
  patients 
  raises 
  doubts 
  about 
  the 
  
student’s 
  professional 
  attitude 
  and/or 
  conduct, 
  ability 
  to 
  provide 
  appropriate 
  care 
  
and/or 
  the 
  welfare 
  of 
  patient(s) 
  is 
  considered 
  in 
  jeopardy 
  -­‐ 
  the 
  Assistant 
  Dean, 
  Clinics 
  
and 
  Building 
  Services 
  will 
  suspend 
  the 
  student’s 
  patient 
  care 
  privileges. 
  The 
  Assistant 
  
Dean, 
  Clinics 
  and 
  Building 
  Services 
  will 
  inform, 
  in 
  writing, 
  the 
  Dean, 
  Assistant 
  Dean 
  
Academic 
  Affairs 
  and 
  Assistant 
  Dean 
  Student 
  Affairs 
  immediately. 
  The 
  Assistant 
  Dean, 
  
Clinical 
  and 
  Building 
  Services 
  may 
  consult 
  with 
  the 
  above 
  as 
  necessary 
  and 
  
appropriate. 
  
The 
  suspension 
  will 
  be 
  effective 
  until 
  it 
  can 
  be 
  determined 
  that 
  the 
  course 
  [sic] 
  of 
  the 
  
problem 
  has 
  been 
  resolved 
  and 
  the 
  student 
  is 
  capable 
  of 
  resuming 
  clinic 
  privileges. 
  If 
  
unresolved 
  in 
  a 
  reasonable 
  time 
  period, 
  documentation 
  will 
  be 
  forwarded 
  to 
  the 
  
appropriate 
  Academic 
  Class 
  Standards 
  Committee. 
   
  
The 
  Clinic 
  Assistant 
  Dean 
  wrote 
  that 
  he 
  had 
  decided 
  on 
  December 
  22 
  that 
  the 
  identified 
  Facebook 
  
posters 
  had 
  “demonstrated 
  extremely 
  poor 
  judgment 
  and 
  blatantly 
  unprofessional 
  behaviour,” 
  
which 
  warranted 
  indefinite 
  suspension 
  of 
  their 
  clinic 
  privileges. 
  He 
  stated 
  that 
  the 
  matter 
  would 
  
be 
  referred 
  to 
  the 
  ACSS, 
  but 
  provided 
  no 
  information 
  about 
  that 
  process. 
  The 
  ACSS 
  confirmed 
  all 
  
the 
  indefinite 
  suspensions 
  the 
  next 
  day, 
  on 
  January 
  6. 
  That 
  decision 
  had 
  significant 
  consequences 
  
for 
  the 
  suspended 
  students, 
  and 
  also 
  affected 
  all 
  other 
  fourth-­‐year 
  and 
  third-­‐year 
  students 
  who 
  
had 
  to 
  assume 
  the 
  suspended 
  students’ 
  patient 
  workload. 
   
  
This 
  decision-­‐making 
  process 
  raises 
  substantial 
  fairness 
  concerns. 
  First, 
  it 
  is 
  not 
  clear 
  why 
  the 
  
affected 
  students 
  (both 
  those 
  who 
  might 
  be 
  suspended 
  and 
  the 
  women 
  targeted 
  in 
  the 
  Facebook 
  
posts) 
  were 
  not 
  given 
  notice 
  that 
  the 
  Clinic 
  Assistant 
  Dean 
  was 
  considering 
  suspension, 
  nor 
  any 
  
opportunity 
  to 
  present 
  their 
  perspectives 
  to 
  him, 
  even 
  in 
  the 
  form 
  of 
  brief 
  meetings 
  or 
  other 
  
communications. 
  We 
  were 
  given 
  no 
  reason 
  why 
  that 
  this 
  decision 
  had 
  to 
  be 
  made 
  on 
  December 
  
22. 
  Students 
  were 
  leaving 
  for 
  the 
  Christmas 
  break 
  and 
  the 
  Clinic 
  was 
  closed 
  until 
  January 
  9. 
  
Without 
  a 
  demonstrated 
  need 
  for 
  urgent 
  action, 
  the 
  lack 
  of 
  notice 
  and 
  any 
  opportunity 
  to 
  be 
  
heard 
  seem 
  unwarranted. 
   
  
Second, 
  this 
  process 
  was 
  not 
  transparent. 
  It 
  was 
  not 
  obvious 
  that 
  the 
  Facebook 
  conduct 
  raised 
  
concerns 
  particular 
  to 
  the 
  Clinic 
  rather 
  than 
  more 
  general 
  concerns 
  about 
  the 
  conduct 
  of 
  the 
  
Facebook 
  posters 
  towards 
  female 
  members 
  of 
  their 
  class—in 
  the 
  Clinic 
  or 
  elsewhere. 
  The 
  Clinic 
  
Assistant 
  Dean 
  gave 
  no 
  reasons 
  for 
  his 
  decision. 
   
  
Third, 
  there 
  are 
  reasons 
  to 
  be 
  concerned 
  about 
  impartiality. 
  The 
  timing 
  is 
  troubling 
  to 
  us. 
  The 
  Vice-­‐
Provost 
  rejected 
  the 
  Dalhousie 
  Faculty 
  Complaint 
  under 
  the 
  Code 
  on 
  the 
  basis 
  that 
  the 
  Clinic 
  
Assistant 
  Dean’s 
  decision 
  of 
  December 
  22 
  had 
  started 
  a 
  professional 
  conduct 
  process, 
  which 
  
meant 
  that 
  the 
  Code 
  no 
  longer 
  applied. 
  It 
  is 
  true 
  that 
  the 
  Code 
  does 
  not 
  apply 
  where 
  there 
  is 
  
already 
  a 
  professionalism 
  review, 
  but 
  it 
  appears 
  that 
  the 
  Dalhousie 
  Faculty 
  Complaint 
  was 
  filed 
  on 
  

 
  

56 
    
  

 December 
  21 
  and 
  only 
  acknowledged 
  as 
  received 
  on 
  December 
  23, 
  one 
  day 
  after 
  the 
  Clinic 
  
Assistant 
  Dean’s 
  decision. 
  His 
  decision 
  was 
  not 
  announced 
  until 
  January 
  5. 
   
  
Fourth, 
  the 
  practical 
  effect 
  of 
  the 
  Clinic 
  Assistant 
  Dean’s 
  decision 
  was 
  to 
  preclude 
  an 
  external 
  
formal 
  process 
  in 
  favour 
  of 
  an 
  internal 
  confidential 
  process. 
  This 
  was 
  troubling 
  because 
  the 
  initial 
  
complaints 
  included 
  not 
  only 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts, 
  but 
  also 
  Dentistry 
  climate 
  and 
  professionalism. 
  
We 
  believe 
  that 
  this 
  created 
  a 
  reasonable 
  perception 
  that 
  Dentistry 
  might 
  have 
  had 
  an 
  interest 
  in 
  
the 
  outcome 
  of 
  the 
  complaints. 
  In 
  these 
  circumstances, 
  we 
  also 
  think 
  it 
  was 
  reasonable 
  to 
  think 
  
that 
  the 
  ASCC, 
  a 
  body 
  internal 
  to 
  Dentistry, 
  was 
  not 
  an 
  impartial 
  decision-­‐maker. 
   
  
Fifth, 
  there 
  was 
  almost 
  no 
  certainty 
  about 
  the 
  process 
  begun 
  by 
  the 
  Clinic 
  Assistant 
  Dean. 
  The 
  
suspensions 
  were 
  indefinite. 
  When 
  the 
  decisions 
  were 
  delivered 
  to 
  the 
  suspended 
  students, 
  there 
  
was 
  no 
  known 
  process 
  for 
  review 
  by 
  the 
  ACSS 
  in 
  the 
  circumstances 
  because 
  the 
  situation 
  was 
  
without 
  precedent. 
   
  
The 
  ASCC’s 
  January 
  8 
  decision 
  to 
  require 
  the 
  identified 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  to 
  attend 
  classes 
  
remotely 
  raises 
  fairness 
  concerns 
  similar 
  to 
  those 
  about 
  the 
  Clinic 
  Assistant 
  Dean’s 
  interim 
  
suspension 
  decision. 
  It 
  is 
  not 
  clear 
  what 
  evidence 
  triggered 
  consideration 
  of 
  this 
  sanction. 
  No 
  
notice 
  was 
  given 
  and 
  there 
  was 
  no 
  opportunity 
  to 
  be 
  heard 
  before 
  that 
  decision 
  was 
  made. 
  The 
  
process 
  was 
  not 
  transparent. 
  It 
  is 
  not 
  clear 
  what 
  authority 
  the 
  ASCC 
  had 
  to 
  suspend 
  students 
  from 
  
regular 
  classes, 
  as 
  this 
  does 
  not 
  appear 
  in 
  its 
  terms 
  of 
  reference. 
  It 
  did 
  not 
  give 
  reasons. 
  Moreover, 
  
the 
  purpose 
  of 
  banning 
  the 
  identified 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  from 
  classrooms, 
  but 
  not 
  the 
  dentistry 
  
building, 
  was 
  far 
  from 
  obvious. 
  That 
  contributed 
  to 
  the 
  perception 
  of 
  unfairness. 
   
  
2. Who 
  decides 
  what 
  policy 
  applies 
  and 
  what 
  the 
  relevant 
  considerations 
  are? 
  What 
  
happens 
  when 
  affected 
  people 
  want 
  different 
  processes? 
  Can 
  there 
  be 
  multiple 
  
processes 
  at 
  the 
  same 
  time? 
   
  
If 
  a 
  complainant 
  does 
  not 
  know 
  what 
  policy 
  applies, 
  or 
  multiple 
  policies 
  may 
  apply, 
  he/she 
  is 
  
entitled 
  to 
  enough 
  information 
  to 
  make 
  an 
  informed 
  decision 
  about 
  whether 
  to 
  proceed 
  and 
  
under 
  what 
  process. 
  Student 
  A 
  wanted 
  to 
  file 
  a 
  formal 
  complaint 
  under 
  the 
  Code. 
  The 
  Vice-­‐
Provost 
  has 
  the 
  power 
  to 
  decide 
  whether 
  the 
  Code 
  applies 
  to 
  a 
  complaint. 
  In 
  this 
  case, 
  she 
  
decided 
  that 
  the 
  Policy 
  was 
  appropriate, 
  not 
  the 
  Code, 
  and 
  directed 
  Student 
  A 
  to 
  the 
  HREHP 
  
office. 
  It 
  is 
  not 
  obvious 
  from 
  the 
  wording 
  of 
  the 
  Code 
  and 
  the 
  Policy 
  that 
  only 
  the 
  Policy 
  applied 
  in 
  
the 
  circumstances. 
  Both 
  appear 
  to 
  prohibit 
  sexual 
  harassment. 
  If 
  both 
  applied, 
  it 
  is 
  not 
  clear 
  
whether 
  a 
  complainant 
  can 
  insist 
  on 
  proceeding 
  under 
  the 
  Code 
  or 
  must 
  accept 
  the 
  direction 
  of 
  
the 
  Vice-­‐Provost. 
  This 
  is 
  a 
  problem 
  common 
  to 
  many 
  institutions 
  in 
  which 
  policies 
  are 
  drafted 
  and 
  
revised 
  over 
  time, 
  by 
  different 
  bodies, 
  without 
  careful 
  consideration 
  of 
  how 
  they 
  interact. 
  Those 
  
who 
  wanted 
  a 
  complaint 
  process 
  under 
  the 
  Code 
  (Student 
  A 
  and 
  the 
  authors 
  of 
  the 
  Dalhousie 
  
Faculty 
  Complaint) 
  and 
  the 
  Vice-­‐Provost 
  would 
  have 
  benefited 
  from 
  guidance 
  about 
  how 
  to 
  deal 
  
with 
  a 
  policy 
  overlap. 
   
  
Implicit 
  in 
  the 
  Vice-­‐Provost’s 
  decision 
  that 
  the 
  Policy 
  was 
  the 
  appropriate 
  avenue 
  for 
  Student 
  A’s 
  
complaint 
  was 
  a 
  determination 
  that 
  it 
  should 
  be 
  addressed, 
  at 
  least 
  initially, 
  by 
  a 
  body 
  outside 
  

 
  

57 
    
  

 Dentistry. 
  The 
  question 
  of 
  who 
  is 
  the 
  appropriate 
  body 
  in 
  charge 
  of 
  a 
  process 
  is 
  always 
  important. 
  
Where 
  there 
  is 
  any 
  possibility 
  that 
  a 
  complaint 
  may 
  implicate 
  or 
  involve 
  the 
  faculty 
  itself, 
  it 
  is 
  
essential 
  that 
  both 
  the 
  process 
  and 
  any 
  decisions 
  be 
  independent 
  of 
  that 
  faculty. 
  We 
  heard 
  that 
  all 
  
of 
  the 
  students 
  who 
  went 
  to 
  the 
  HREHP 
  complained 
  about 
  culture 
  and 
  professionalism 
  in 
  
Dentistry 
  as 
  a 
  whole, 
  not 
  only 
  about 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts. 
  In 
  this 
  case, 
  perceptions 
  of 
  fairness 
  
would 
  have 
  been 
  enhanced 
  by 
  using 
  a 
  process 
  and 
  a 
  decision-­‐maker 
  outside 
  of 
  Dentistry. 
  
Several 
  female 
  dental 
  students 
  complained 
  about 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts. 
  Some 
  wanted 
  a 
  formal 
  
complaint 
  process. 
  That 
  would 
  have 
  included 
  an 
  investigation, 
  an 
  investigation 
  report, 
  an 
  
opportunity 
  for 
  complainants 
  and 
  respondents 
  to 
  make 
  submissions 
  in 
  response 
  to 
  the 
  report, 
  and 
  
a 
  decision 
  with 
  reasons 
  about 
  whether 
  the 
  respondents 
  had 
  violated 
  the 
  Policy. 
  Others 
  wanted 
  an 
  
informal 
  process, 
  which 
  HREHP 
  staff 
  described 
  as 
  providing 
  a 
  more 
  timely 
  resolution 
  of 
  the 
  
complaints. 
  They 
  described 
  it 
  as 
  a 
  confidential 
  and 
  voluntary 
  participatory 
  RJ 
  process 
  that 
  involved 
  
facilitated 
  discussions 
  with 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  and 
  others 
  to 
  address 
  harm 
  related 
  to 
  the 
  
Facebook 
  postings. 
   
  
In 
  our 
  justice 
  system, 
  complainants 
  are 
  entitled 
  to 
  a 
  formal 
  process 
  for 
  reviewing 
  the 
  complaints 
  
and 
  determining 
  whether 
  they 
  are 
  substantiated. 
  Informal 
  resolution 
  is 
  always 
  an 
  option, 
  but 
  it 
  
takes 
  place 
  against 
  a 
  background 
  framework 
  of 
  legal 
  rights 
  and 
  obligations, 
  although 
  formal 
  and 
  
informal 
  processes 
  may 
  proceed 
  together. 
  However, 
  an 
  informal 
  process 
  chosen 
  by 
  some 
  
individuals 
  would 
  violate 
  both 
  principles 
  of 
  fairness 
  and 
  the 
  legal 
  entitlements 
  of 
  others 
  if 
  it 
  
precluded 
  them 
  from 
  pursuing 
  a 
  formal 
  complaint. 
  It 
  is 
  not 
  clear 
  whether 
  that 
  happened 
  here, 
  but 
  
there 
  is 
  cause 
  for 
  concern. 
  
Student 
  A 
  wanted 
  to 
  pursue 
  a 
  formal 
  complaint, 
  but 
  that 
  did 
  not 
  happen. 
  The 
  only 
  action 
  under 
  
the 
  Policy 
  was 
  the 
  informal 
  RJ 
  process. 
  It 
  is 
  not 
  clear 
  whether 
  Student 
  A 
  actually 
  filed 
  a 
  formal 
  
written 
  complaint 
  under 
  the 
  Policy. 
  If 
  she 
  did, 
  and 
  did 
  not 
  withdraw 
  it, 
  the 
  steps 
  under 
  the 
  Policy’s 
  
formal 
  complaint 
  procedure 
  should 
  have 
  been 
  followed. 
  If 
  she 
  did 
  not, 
  it 
  is 
  not 
  clear 
  why. 
  Did 
  
Student 
  A 
  get 
  adequate 
  information 
  and 
  support 
  to 
  make 
  a 
  formal 
  complaint 
  under 
  the 
  Policy? 
  
The 
  fact 
  that 
  RJ 
  was 
  under 
  way 
  was 
  not 
  a 
  basis 
  for 
  rejecting 
  a 
  formal 
  complaint 
  or 
  not 
  actively 
  
assisting 
  Student 
  A 
  or 
  others 
  to 
  pursue 
  a 
  formal 
  complaint 
  process. 
   
  
The 
  RJ 
  process 
  was 
  confidential, 
  and 
  all 
  participants 
  signed 
  participation 
  agreements 
  to 
  that 
  
effect. 
  Although 
  the 
  agreements 
  acknowledged 
  that 
  other 
  complaints 
  might 
  be 
  made 
  under 
  the 
  
Code 
  or 
  Policy, 
  it 
  stated 
  that 
  “These 
  complaints 
  may 
  or 
  may 
  not 
  proceed 
  depending 
  on 
  the 
  specific 
  
allegations 
  contained 
  in 
  those 
  complaints.” 
  It 
  failed 
  to 
  state 
  that 
  the 
  confidentiality 
  requirements 
  
applying 
  to 
  information 
  disclosed 
  by 
  an 
  individual 
  in 
  the 
  RJ 
  process 
  would 
  not 
  bar 
  that 
  person 
  
from 
  disclosing 
  the 
  same 
  information 
  as 
  an 
  interviewee 
  or 
  witness 
  in 
  a 
  formal 
  complaint 
  process. 
  
This 
  omission 
  created 
  the 
  incorrect 
  impression 
  that 
  “anything 
  said 
  in 
  RJ 
  stays 
  in 
  RJ” 
  and 
  that 
  no 
  
one 
  in 
  RJ 
  could 
  provide 
  any 
  information 
  to 
  a 
  formal 
  investigation. 
   
  
Complainants 
  are 
  often 
  reluctant 
  to 
  pursue 
  allegations 
  of 
  sexual 
  misconduct, 
  in 
  part 
  because 
  they 
  
do 
  not 
  want 
  to 
  be 
  identified. 
  The 
  Policy 
  does 
  not 
  permit 
  anonymous 
  formal 
  complaints. 
  Formal 
  

 
  

58 
    
  

 complaints 
  must 
  be 
  signed. 
  However, 
  it 
  does 
  protect 
  complainant 
  anonymity 
  in 
  a 
  different 
  way. 
  
Where 
  an 
  “administrative 
  head” 
  (in 
  this 
  case, 
  the 
  Vice-­‐Provost) 
  becomes 
  aware 
  of 
  conduct 
  that 
  
may 
  be 
  contrary 
  to 
  the 
  Policy, 
  he/she 
  “may 
  undertake 
  review 
  of 
  the 
  work 
  or 
  study 
  environment,” 
  
even 
  where 
  a 
  complainant 
  does 
  not 
  want 
  to 
  pursue 
  the 
  complaint. 
  The 
  Vice-­‐Provost 
  could 
  have 
  
started 
  such 
  a 
  review 
  if 
  she 
  was 
  aware 
  that 
  students 
  who 
  wanted 
  to 
  pursue 
  a 
  formal 
  complaint 
  
were 
  not 
  coming 
  forward 
  out 
  of 
  fear 
  of 
  being 
  identified. 
  Unlike 
  many 
  sexual 
  harassment 
  
situations, 
  the 
  screenshots 
  of 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  provided 
  a 
  substantial 
  body 
  of 
  evidence 
  that 
  
could 
  have 
  formed 
  the 
  basis 
  for 
  an 
  investigation 
  without 
  a 
  named 
  complainant. 
   
  
While 
  multiple 
  processes 
  can 
  exist 
  at 
  the 
  same 
  time, 
  policies 
  can 
  specify 
  that 
  they 
  may 
  not. 
  This 
  is 
  
because 
  duplication 
  of 
  formal 
  processes 
  is 
  expensive 
  and 
  time-­‐consuming. 
  It 
  may 
  also 
  be 
  unfair 
  
because 
  it 
  creates 
  the 
  possibility 
  of 
  inconsistent 
  outcomes. 
  Like 
  student 
  codes 
  of 
  conduct 
  at 
  a 
  
number 
  of 
  other 
  institutions, 
  the 
  Code 
  expressly 
  provides 
  that 
  it 
  will 
  not 
  apply 
  when 
  the 
  conduct 
  
is 
  under 
  review 
  by 
  another 
  disciplinary 
  body 
  or 
  “is 
  subject 
  to 
  action 
  as 
  an 
  alleged 
  failure 
  to 
  meet 
  
standards 
  of 
  professional 
  conduct 
  as 
  required 
  by 
  a 
  college, 
  faculty 
  or 
  school.” 
  The 
  Vice-­‐Provost 
  
decided 
  that 
  the 
  Code 
  did 
  not 
  apply 
  to 
  the 
  Dalhousie 
  Faculty 
  Complaint 
  on 
  the 
  basis 
  that 
  the 
  ASCC 
  
process 
  had 
  already 
  started. 
  No 
  fairness 
  problem 
  arises 
  from 
  this 
  decision, 
  considered 
  in 
  isolation, 
  
but 
  there 
  were 
  very 
  substantial 
  concerns 
  about 
  the 
  ASCC 
  process, 
  as 
  we 
  describe 
  elsewhere. 
   
  
3. If 
  a 
  process 
  is 
  voluntary, 
  to 
  what 
  information 
  are 
  potential 
  participants 
  entitled 
  before 
  
agreeing 
  to 
  participate? 
  What 
  does 
  “voluntary” 
  mean? 
   
  
For 
  a 
  process 
  to 
  be 
  voluntary 
  from 
  a 
  fairness 
  perspective, 
  at 
  least 
  two 
  conditions 
  must 
  apply. 
  First, 
  
the 
  person 
  must 
  be 
  informed, 
  with 
  all 
  of 
  the 
  relevant 
  information 
  about 
  the 
  process, 
  including 
  its 
  
consequences. 
  Second, 
  the 
  decision 
  to 
  participate 
  must 
  be 
  free, 
  made 
  without 
  any 
  unfair 
  pressure 
  
on 
  the 
  person 
  to 
  decide 
  one 
  way 
  rather 
  than 
  another. 
  Both 
  types 
  of 
  fairness 
  concerns 
  arise 
  about 
  
the 
  students’ 
  decisions 
  to 
  participate 
  in 
  RJ. 
  
Some 
  students 
  received 
  information 
  about 
  the 
  RJ 
  process 
  as 
  early 
  as 
  December 
  12. 
  More 
  
information 
  was 
  provided 
  at 
  multiple 
  meetings 
  between 
  the 
  RJ 
  facilitators 
  and 
  groups 
  of 
  fourth-­‐
year 
  students, 
  Dentistry 
  and 
  University 
  administrators, 
  and 
  the 
  media, 
  between 
  December 
  16 
  and 
  
January 
  5. 
  From 
  what 
  we 
  heard, 
  the 
  information 
  about 
  the 
  RJ 
  process 
  changed 
  over 
  time. 
  
Processes 
  can 
  be 
  tailored 
  to 
  the 
  situation 
  at 
  hand 
  and 
  still 
  be 
  fair. 
  But 
  in 
  that 
  case, 
  it 
  is 
  especially 
  
important 
  to 
  be 
  clear 
  and 
  consistent 
  about 
  the 
  overarching 
  framework, 
  and 
  to 
  provide 
  certainty 
  
that 
  the 
  framework 
  will 
  not 
  change 
  without 
  adequate 
  notice. 
  We 
  do 
  not 
  know 
  what 
  the 
  RJ 
  
facilitators 
  said 
  in 
  the 
  various 
  meetings, 
  but 
  we 
  heard 
  inconsistent 
  accounts 
  of 
  aspects 
  of 
  the 
  RJ 
  
process 
  from 
  various 
  people. 
   
  
The 
  content 
  of 
  the 
  screenshots 
  was 
  key 
  information 
  for 
  people 
  considering 
  whether 
  to 
  participate 
  
in 
  RJ. 
  We 
  heard 
  that 
  all 
  of 
  the 
  identified 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  received 
  the 
  full 
  package 
  of 
  
screenshots. 
  Female 
  fourth-­‐year 
  students 
  only 
  received 
  posts 
  that 
  “affected 
  them,” 
  which 
  implies 
  
that 
  this 
  was 
  something 
  less 
  than 
  the 
  full 
  package. 
  We 
  do 
  not 
  know 
  what 
  posts, 
  if 
  any, 
  male 
  
fourth-­‐year 
  students 
  not 
  identified 
  as 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  received. 
  Of 
  course, 
  some 
  of 
  the 
  Facebook 
  
posts 
  were 
  published 
  in 
  the 
  media, 
  and 
  all 
  students 
  would 
  have 
  seen 
  those. 
   
  

 
  

59 
    
  

 From 
  a 
  fairness 
  perspective, 
  the 
  decision 
  to 
  give 
  some 
  people 
  more 
  information 
  than 
  others 
  is 
  
questionable. 
  We 
  heard 
  that 
  concerns 
  about 
  individual 
  privacy 
  may 
  have 
  motivated 
  the 
  
restriction. 
  However, 
  all 
  of 
  the 
  posts 
  were 
  disclosed 
  on 
  a 
  confidential 
  basis. 
  Anyone 
  receiving 
  the 
  
information 
  had 
  to 
  sign 
  a 
  confidentiality 
  agreement 
  not 
  to 
  disclose 
  it. 
  As 
  we 
  understand 
  it, 
  a 
  
premise 
  of 
  the 
  RJ 
  process 
  was 
  acknowledgment 
  of 
  mutual 
  harm 
  arising 
  from 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts. 
  
All 
  of 
  the 
  people 
  considering 
  whether 
  to 
  participate 
  in 
  RJ 
  were 
  affected, 
  in 
  various 
  ways, 
  by 
  all 
  of 
  
the 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  captured 
  in 
  the 
  screenshots. 
  That 
  information 
  was 
  relevant 
  to 
  their 
  decision 
  
about 
  the 
  RJ 
  process 
  and 
  the 
  same 
  information 
  should 
  have 
  been 
  given 
  to 
  all 
  of 
  them. 
  
One 
  other 
  type 
  of 
  information 
  was 
  critical 
  to 
  the 
  assessment 
  of 
  informed 
  consent 
  by 
  the 
  identified 
  
Facebook 
  posters. 
  This 
  was 
  the 
  effect 
  of 
  participation 
  in 
  RJ 
  on 
  their 
  suspensions. 
  On 
  January 
  6, 
  the 
  
ASCC 
  confirmed 
  the 
  indefinite 
  interim 
  suspensions 
  imposed 
  by 
  the 
  Clinic 
  Assistant 
  Dean 
  and 
  
decided 
  to 
  defer 
  its 
  decision 
  about 
  whether 
  to 
  lift 
  the 
  suspensions 
  pending 
  the 
  outcome 
  of 
  the 
  RJ 
  
process. 
  It 
  required 
  the 
  RJ 
  facilitators 
  to 
  provide 
  updates 
  and 
  imposed 
  consequences 
  on 
  the 
  
suspended 
  students 
  depending 
  on 
  whether 
  they 
  participated 
  in 
  and 
  completed 
  RJ 
  successfully. 
  
The 
  deadline 
  for 
  deciding 
  to 
  participate 
  in 
  RJ 
  was 
  January 
  8. 
  We 
  heard 
  that 
  the 
  suspended 
  
students 
  did 
  not 
  feel 
  that 
  they 
  had 
  enough 
  information 
  about 
  the 
  relationship 
  between 
  RJ 
  and 
  the 
  
ASCC 
  process. 
  It 
  was 
  not 
  clear 
  what 
  “successful” 
  completion 
  of 
  RJ 
  meant, 
  who 
  would 
  decide 
  this, 
  
and 
  what 
  more 
  could 
  be 
  required. 
  The 
  duration 
  of 
  the 
  process 
  and 
  suspensions 
  was 
  important 
  
because 
  the 
  suspended 
  students 
  still 
  had 
  to 
  complete 
  their 
  clinic 
  requirements 
  to 
  graduate. 
  Thus, 
  
information 
  about 
  both 
  the 
  most 
  effective 
  and 
  the 
  quickest 
  way 
  to 
  have 
  the 
  suspension 
  lifted 
  was 
  
crucial 
  to 
  the 
  informed 
  consent 
  of 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posters. 
  We 
  do 
  not 
  know 
  whether 
  information 
  
they 
  were 
  given 
  was 
  adequate. 
   
  
The 
  other 
  condition 
  governing 
  the 
  fairness 
  of 
  a 
  voluntary 
  process 
  is 
  the 
  absence 
  of 
  improper 
  
pressure 
  to 
  make 
  a 
  particular 
  choice. 
  The 
  ASCC’s 
  decision 
  to 
  make 
  successful 
  completion 
  of 
  RJ 
  key 
  
to 
  lifting 
  the 
  suspensions 
  compromised 
  the 
  voluntariness 
  of 
  the 
  RJ 
  process 
  for 
  those 
  students. 
  The 
  
ASCC’s 
  process 
  established 
  that, 
  if 
  a 
  suspended 
  student 
  completed 
  RJ 
  “successfully,” 
  the 
  ASCC 
  
would 
  only 
  consider 
  whether 
  any 
  further 
  remedial 
  action 
  was 
  necessary 
  before 
  lifting 
  the 
  
suspension. 
  If 
  a 
  student 
  did 
  not 
  participate 
  in 
  RJ 
  (or 
  not 
  successfully), 
  the 
  ASCC 
  would 
  consider 
  
whether 
  remediation 
  measures 
  were 
  appropriate 
  or 
  whether 
  the 
  student 
  should 
  be 
  academically 
  
dismissed. 
  The 
  possibility 
  of 
  dismissal, 
  which 
  only 
  arose 
  from 
  not 
  participating 
  in 
  RJ, 
  put 
  pressure 
  
on 
  the 
  suspended 
  students 
  to 
  choose 
  RJ 
  and 
  do 
  everything 
  the 
  RJ 
  facilitators 
  required 
  of 
  them. 
  In 
  
these 
  circumstances 
  it 
  could 
  be 
  argued 
  that 
  they 
  did 
  not 
  consent 
  freely. 
   
  
Some 
  proponents 
  of 
  RJ 
  processes 
  consider 
  that 
  such 
  incentives 
  on 
  respondents 
  or 
  perpetrators 
  to 
  
consent 
  to 
  participate 
  in 
  RJ 
  are 
  beneficial 
  and 
  contribute 
  to 
  the 
  success 
  of 
  RJ 
  processes. 
  If 
  that 
  is 
  
true, 
  it 
  may 
  be 
  that 
  the 
  importance 
  of 
  RJ 
  outcomes 
  outweighs 
  the 
  fairness 
  concerns 
  arising 
  from 
  
something 
  less 
  than 
  free 
  consent. 
  We 
  do 
  not 
  have 
  the 
  expertise 
  to 
  agree 
  or 
  disagree. 
   
  
We 
  also 
  heard 
  that 
  some 
  students 
  felt 
  other 
  pressures 
  to 
  participate 
  in 
  RJ. 
  Sources 
  of 
  these 
  
pressures 
  included 
  the 
  President, 
  who 
  publicly 
  endorsed 
  RJ 
  as 
  the 
  most 
  appropriate 
  response—
before 
  students 
  had 
  decided 
  on 
  this 
  process—and 
  the 
  HREHP 
  office, 
  which 
  some 
  said 
  gave 
  short 
  

 
  

60 
    
  

 shrift 
  to 
  the 
  formal 
  process 
  and 
  advocated 
  for 
  RJ. 
  We 
  heard 
  about 
  the 
  HREHP’s 
  strong 
  preference 
  
for 
  informal 
  processes 
  from 
  many 
  sources 
  outside 
  Dentistry 
  as 
  well, 
  and 
  the 
  very 
  low 
  incidence 
  of 
  
formal 
  complaints 
  under 
  the 
  Policy 
  bears 
  this 
  out. 
  To 
  the 
  extent 
  that 
  students 
  experienced 
  this 
  as 
  
pressure 
  to 
  participate 
  in 
  RJ, 
  these 
  actions 
  also 
  detracted 
  from 
  fairness. 
   
  
4. Can 
  policies 
  and 
  processes 
  be 
  combined 
  or 
  customized 
  to 
  suit 
  a 
  particular 
  situation 
  or 
  
should 
  standard 
  processes 
  always 
  be 
  followed? 
   
  
There 
  is 
  nothing 
  inherently 
  unfair 
  in 
  combining 
  or 
  customizing 
  processes, 
  provided 
  that 
  it 
  does 
  not 
  
compromise 
  fairness 
  principles. 
  Formal 
  policies 
  often 
  build 
  in 
  elements 
  of 
  flexibility 
  so 
  that 
  the 
  
process 
  can 
  be 
  adapted 
  to 
  fit 
  the 
  situation. 
  For 
  example, 
  some 
  sexual 
  harassment 
  policies 
  permit 
  
different 
  types 
  of 
  investigation 
  depending 
  on 
  the 
  nature 
  of 
  a 
  formal 
  complaint. 
  Typically, 
  informal 
  
processes 
  are 
  adaptable 
  to 
  a 
  wide 
  variety 
  of 
  situations, 
  but 
  must 
  still 
  comply 
  with 
  principles 
  of 
  
informed 
  consent, 
  transparency 
  about 
  the 
  process, 
  impartiality, 
  and 
  certainty. 
   
  
Apart 
  from 
  other 
  concerns 
  about 
  the 
  RJ 
  process, 
  there 
  is 
  some 
  basis 
  for 
  concern 
  about 
  its 
  
transparency. 
  Disclosure 
  of 
  information 
  within 
  misconduct 
  processes 
  may 
  be 
  confidential, 
  but 
  
potential 
  participants 
  must 
  be 
  told 
  the 
  steps 
  in 
  the 
  process, 
  the 
  consequences, 
  and 
  the 
  time 
  frame 
  
for 
  resolution. 
  Early 
  on 
  in 
  RJ, 
  decisions 
  had 
  to 
  be 
  made 
  about 
  who 
  could 
  participate 
  and 
  key 
  
elements 
  of 
  the 
  process. 
  This 
  information 
  should 
  have 
  been 
  made 
  public. 
  It 
  is 
  not 
  clear 
  to 
  us 
  
whether 
  it 
  was. 
  Some 
  people 
  who 
  were 
  affected 
  by 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  published 
  in 
  the 
  media 
  
told 
  us 
  they 
  wanted 
  to 
  participate 
  in 
  RJ 
  but 
  did 
  not 
  know 
  the 
  eligibility 
  criteria 
  and 
  either 
  received 
  
no 
  response 
  to 
  their 
  request 
  to 
  participate 
  or 
  one 
  that 
  did 
  not 
  explain 
  why 
  they 
  were 
  ineligible. 
  
Transparency 
  would 
  have 
  been 
  enhanced 
  if 
  this 
  information 
  had 
  been 
  disclosed 
  once 
  those 
  
decisions 
  had 
  been 
  made. 
   
  
The 
  RJ 
  Report 
  revealed 
  that 
  a 
  key 
  component 
  of 
  the 
  RJ 
  process 
  was 
  an 
  investigation 
  and 
  findings. 
  
However, 
  the 
  fact 
  that 
  RJ 
  would 
  include 
  an 
  investigation 
  with 
  published 
  findings 
  was 
  not 
  generally 
  
known. 
  It 
  was 
  not 
  referenced 
  in 
  the 
  participation 
  agreements 
  and 
  was 
  not 
  mentioned 
  in 
  the 
  
University’s 
  descriptions 
  of 
  RJ. 
  The 
  lack 
  of 
  transparency 
  about 
  RJ’s 
  investigative 
  function 
  also 
  
raises 
  informed 
  consent 
  concerns. 
  Would 
  the 
  prospect 
  of 
  this 
  use 
  of 
  the 
  information 
  RJ 
  
participants 
  would 
  disclose 
  during 
  the 
  process 
  have 
  affected 
  their 
  decision 
  to 
  choose 
  RJ? 
  Another 
  
transparency 
  issues 
  arose 
  when 
  RJ 
  was 
  incorporated 
  into 
  the 
  ASCC 
  review 
  and 
  it 
  was 
  unclear 
  how 
  
that 
  would 
  work. 
   
  
The 
  relative 
  lack 
  of 
  transparency 
  about 
  the 
  RJ 
  process 
  increased 
  the 
  perception 
  that 
  those 
  in 
  RJ 
  
had 
  access 
  to 
  information 
  that 
  should 
  have 
  been 
  available 
  to 
  all. 
  Many 
  of 
  those 
  who 
  did 
  not 
  
participate 
  in 
  RJ 
  felt 
  isolated 
  and 
  suspected 
  that 
  they 
  were 
  not 
  getting 
  information 
  to 
  which 
  they 
  
were 
  entitled 
  because 
  RJ 
  became 
  a 
  preferred 
  route 
  for 
  disseminating 
  information 
  to 
  the 
  fourth-­‐
year 
  class. 
  
Concern 
  about 
  the 
  impartiality 
  of 
  RJ 
  arises 
  from 
  its 
  claim 
  that 
  it 
  conducted 
  an 
  investigation 
  
sufficient 
  to 
  support 
  factual 
  findings 
  about 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group 
  and 
  the 
  culture 
  and 
  climate 
  in 
  
Dentistry. 
  Basic 
  fairness 
  principles 
  apply 
  to 
  investigations, 
  including 
  the 
  requirement 
  to 
  gather 
  

 
  

61 
    
  

 information 
  from 
  available 
  sources, 
  and 
  evaluate 
  that 
  evidence 
  objectively. 
  There 
  is 
  no 
  indication 
  
that 
  the 
  RJ 
  facilitators 
  interviewed 
  students 
  who 
  did 
  not 
  participate 
  in 
  RJ 
  to 
  gather 
  information 
  
about 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group 
  or 
  Dentistry 
  culture 
  or 
  climate, 
  or 
  that 
  they 
  sought 
  this 
  information 
  
from 
  faculty 
  members, 
  staff, 
  or 
  administrators. 
  Gathering 
  information 
  from 
  these 
  sources 
  was 
  not 
  
central 
  to 
  the 
  RJ 
  function 
  of 
  bringing 
  participants 
  to 
  a 
  deeper 
  understanding 
  of 
  what 
  happened 
  
and 
  equipping 
  them 
  with 
  the 
  tools 
  to 
  constructively 
  reflect 
  on 
  their 
  behaviour. 
  However, 
  it 
  was 
  
essential 
  to 
  a 
  full 
  and 
  fair 
  investigation. 
   
  
Further, 
  the 
  role 
  of 
  the 
  RJ 
  facilitators 
  did 
  not 
  lend 
  itself 
  to 
  objectively 
  assessing 
  information, 
  
particularly 
  from 
  people 
  such 
  as 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posters, 
  whose 
  perspective 
  on 
  issues 
  like 
  the 
  
climate 
  in 
  Dentistry 
  and 
  staff 
  issues 
  might 
  be 
  influenced 
  by 
  their 
  interests. 
  The 
  role 
  of 
  RJ 
  
facilitators, 
  as 
  we 
  understand 
  it, 
  is 
  not 
  to 
  stand 
  back 
  from 
  participants 
  and 
  assess 
  their 
  credibility. 
  
It 
  is 
  to 
  stand 
  with 
  them 
  and 
  help 
  them 
  to 
  gain 
  insight 
  into 
  their 
  motivations 
  and 
  interest. 
  This 
  is 
  
difficult 
  to 
  reconcile 
  with 
  the 
  requirements 
  of 
  an 
  investigation. 
   
  
Customizing 
  the 
  ASCC 
  process 
  also 
  raises 
  fairness 
  concerns. 
  The 
  Clinic 
  Policy 
  and 
  Procedure 
  
Manual 
  and 
  the 
  ASCC’s 
  terms 
  of 
  reference 
  do 
  not 
  appear 
  to 
  contemplate 
  that 
  the 
  Clinic 
  Assistant 
  
Dean’s 
  powers 
  to 
  suspend, 
  and 
  the 
  ASCC’s 
  power 
  to 
  confirm 
  suspensions, 
  apply 
  to 
  a 
  situation 
  like 
  
this, 
  involving 
  a 
  large 
  group 
  of 
  students, 
  and 
  conduct 
  that 
  occurred 
  outside 
  of 
  the 
  Clinic. 
  It 
  seems 
  
that 
  the 
  Clinic 
  Assistant 
  Dean 
  made 
  his 
  decision 
  without 
  being 
  aware 
  that 
  a 
  complaint 
  or 
  
complaints 
  had 
  already 
  been 
  made 
  under 
  the 
  Policy. 
  The 
  ASCC 
  created 
  a 
  special 
  process 
  for 
  the 
  
suspended 
  students 
  in 
  its 
  January 
  6 
  decision, 
  but 
  gave 
  no 
  information 
  about 
  the 
  factors 
  it 
  
considered 
  in 
  doing 
  so. 
  Together 
  with 
  the 
  fact 
  that 
  it 
  gave 
  no 
  notice 
  to 
  those 
  affected 
  and 
  did 
  not 
  
hear 
  from 
  them, 
  the 
  fairness 
  of 
  customizing 
  the 
  ASCC 
  process 
  is 
  questionable. 
   
  
The 
  ASCC’s 
  special 
  procedures 
  raise 
  additional 
  fairness 
  concerns. 
  It 
  took 
  an 
  RJ 
  process 
  chosen 
  by 
  
students 
  who 
  did 
  not 
  want 
  formal 
  sanctions 
  to 
  be 
  levied 
  on 
  their 
  classmates 
  and 
  made 
  it 
  the 
  basis 
  
for 
  continuing 
  the 
  indefinite 
  suspensions. 
  The 
  ASCC’s 
  procedures 
  altered 
  the 
  confidentiality 
  and 
  
privacy 
  in 
  the 
  RJ 
  process 
  by 
  requiring 
  the 
  RJ 
  facilitators 
  to 
  report 
  to 
  it, 
  and 
  for 
  the 
  ASCC 
  to 
  
participate 
  in 
  an 
  RJ 
  session 
  with 
  students. 
  The 
  ability 
  of 
  students 
  to 
  express 
  views 
  about 
  climate 
  
and 
  culture, 
  which 
  were 
  part 
  of 
  the 
  complaint 
  that 
  led 
  to 
  RJ 
  (and 
  the 
  subject 
  of 
  findings 
  in 
  the 
  RJ 
  
Report), 
  would 
  reasonably 
  be 
  perceived 
  to 
  be 
  hindered 
  by 
  faculty 
  members 
  hearing 
  them 
  in 
  their 
  
capacity 
  as 
  ASCC 
  members. 
   
  
It 
  was 
  not 
  necessary 
  for 
  the 
  ASCC 
  to 
  entwine 
  its 
  process 
  with 
  RJ. 
  Assuming 
  that 
  the 
  suspensions 
  
were 
  authorized, 
  it 
  would 
  have 
  been 
  simpler 
  for 
  the 
  ASCC 
  to 
  meet 
  with 
  each 
  of 
  the 
  suspended 
  
students, 
  gather 
  other 
  relevant 
  information, 
  and 
  determine 
  whether 
  a 
  continued 
  suspension 
  was 
  
warranted 
  in 
  each 
  case. 
  As 
  the 
  ASCC 
  made 
  clear 
  in 
  its 
  March 
  6 
  decision 
  about 
  Student 
  B, 
  it 
  does 
  
not 
  have 
  disciplinary 
  powers, 
  so 
  the 
  suspension 
  of 
  the 
  students 
  was 
  not 
  justified 
  as 
  a 
  punitive 
  
measure. 
  It 
  was 
  only 
  justified 
  as 
  long 
  as 
  there 
  was 
  an 
  objective 
  basis 
  for 
  concern 
  about 
  safety 
  or 
  
about 
  a 
  student’s 
  capability 
  to 
  act 
  professionally. 
  That 
  decision 
  was 
  ASCC’s 
  to 
  make 
  about 
  each 
  
suspended 
  student 
  individually. 
  Without 
  that 
  process, 
  the 
  suspensions 
  appeared 
  disciplinary 
  and 
  
arbitrary. 
   
  

 
  

62 
    
  

 Further, 
  the 
  RJ 
  process 
  was 
  not 
  a 
  “remediation” 
  process 
  in 
  the 
  sense 
  that 
  term 
  is 
  used 
  in 
  
professional 
  regulation. 
  When 
  a 
  professional 
  has 
  failed 
  to 
  demonstrate 
  the 
  required 
  level 
  of 
  
competence, 
  he/she 
  is 
  required 
  to 
  take 
  training 
  to 
  acquire 
  the 
  deficient 
  skills. 
  The 
  ASCC 
  was 
  
required 
  to 
  restore 
  clinic 
  privileges 
  once 
  a 
  student 
  had 
  completed 
  the 
  remedial 
  requirements 
  the 
  
ASCC 
  established. 
  But 
  RJ 
  was 
  not 
  about 
  remediation. 
  The 
  majority 
  of 
  participants 
  were 
  not 
  
suspended 
  and 
  had 
  not 
  chosen 
  to 
  participate 
  in 
  a 
  remediation 
  program. 
  In 
  these 
  respects, 
  the 
  
entwining 
  of 
  RJ 
  with 
  the 
  ASCC 
  was 
  less 
  than 
  fair. 
   
  
5. How 
  should 
  concerns 
  about 
  conflict 
  of 
  interest 
  be 
  addressed? 
   
  
Some 
  senators, 
  the 
  authors 
  of 
  the 
  Dalhousie 
  Faculty 
  Complaint, 
  and 
  Student 
  B, 
  among 
  others, 
  said 
  
that 
  the 
  ASCC 
  was 
  in 
  a 
  conflict 
  of 
  interest 
  because 
  some 
  people 
  on 
  the 
  ASCC 
  were 
  the 
  subject 
  of 
  
some 
  of 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts. 
  The 
  fact 
  that 
  neither 
  the 
  University 
  nor 
  Dentistry 
  responded 
  to 
  this 
  
concern 
  increased 
  the 
  public 
  perception 
  that 
  the 
  process 
  was 
  unfair. 
  It 
  was 
  described 
  as 
  a 
  “cover-­‐
up” 
  or 
  “contain 
  and 
  control” 
  technique 
  that 
  showed 
  that 
  the 
  University’s 
  only 
  concern 
  was 
  its 
  
reputation. 
   
  
Concerns 
  about 
  conflict 
  of 
  interest 
  should 
  always 
  be 
  taken 
  seriously. 
  If 
  not 
  addressed 
  promptly 
  
and 
  directly, 
  they 
  can 
  undermine 
  an 
  otherwise 
  fair 
  process. 
  Fairness 
  principles 
  apply 
  not 
  only 
  to 
  
actual 
  conflict 
  or 
  bias, 
  they 
  require 
  that 
  there 
  be 
  no 
  reasonable 
  perception 
  of 
  bias 
  or 
  conflict 
  of 
  
interest. 
  This 
  requirement 
  grows 
  more 
  stringent 
  where 
  the 
  decision 
  has 
  greater 
  potential 
  for 
  
adverse 
  impact 
  on 
  the 
  individual. 
  Here, 
  two 
  factors 
  provided 
  a 
  reasonable 
  basis 
  for 
  the 
  perception 
  
that 
  Dentistry 
  might 
  be 
  biased 
  or 
  in 
  a 
  conflict 
  of 
  interest. 
  First, 
  the 
  complaint 
  pursued 
  through 
  RJ 
  
under 
  the 
  Policy 
  included 
  allegations 
  about 
  the 
  culture 
  and 
  professionalism 
  inside 
  Dentistry, 
  as 
  
well 
  as 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts, 
  and 
  so 
  necessarily 
  implicated 
  Dentistry 
  administration. 
  Second, 
  some 
  
of 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  were 
  about 
  particular 
  identifiable 
  faculty 
  members. 
  Those 
  individuals 
  could 
  
reasonably 
  be 
  perceived 
  as 
  having 
  a 
  conflict 
  of 
  interest 
  if, 
  as 
  members 
  of 
  ASCC, 
  they 
  did 
  not 
  
recuse 
  themselves 
  and 
  were 
  involved 
  in 
  reviewing 
  that 
  conduct. 
  The 
  potential 
  consequences 
  of 
  
the 
  ASCC 
  proceedings 
  were 
  very 
  severe—up 
  to 
  academic 
  dismissal 
  in 
  the 
  case 
  of 
  any 
  suspended 
  
student 
  who 
  was 
  not 
  participating 
  in 
  RJ—which 
  heightened 
  the 
  importance 
  of 
  ensuring 
  that 
  there 
  
was 
  no 
  perceived 
  conflict 
  of 
  interest. 
   
  
Conflict 
  of 
  interest 
  issues 
  are 
  usually 
  raised 
  with 
  the 
  decision-­‐maker. 
  But 
  this 
  concern 
  could 
  not 
  
have 
  been 
  raised 
  to 
  the 
  ASCC 
  before 
  it 
  confirmed 
  the 
  suspension 
  decision 
  on 
  January 
  6. 
  None 
  of 
  
the 
  students 
  knew 
  they 
  had 
  been 
  suspended 
  until 
  the 
  day 
  before, 
  and 
  they 
  had 
  not 
  been 
  told 
  
when 
  the 
  ASCC 
  would 
  review 
  those 
  suspensions. 
  The 
  ASCC’s 
  January 
  6 
  decision 
  did 
  not 
  include 
  
reasons, 
  so 
  it 
  is 
  not 
  possible 
  to 
  know 
  whether 
  the 
  conflict 
  of 
  interest 
  issue 
  was 
  considered. 
  
Concerns 
  about 
  the 
  ASCC’s 
  impartiality 
  were 
  raised 
  in 
  other 
  forums 
  soon 
  after 
  it 
  issued 
  its 
  initial 
  
decision. 
  Fairness 
  could 
  have 
  been 
  enhanced 
  by 
  acknowledging 
  and 
  openly 
  addressing 
  those 
  
concerns. 
  That 
  would 
  mean 
  either 
  explaining 
  why 
  the 
  perception 
  of 
  bias 
  was 
  not 
  well 
  founded 
  or 
  
responding 
  to 
  the 
  concern. 
  For 
  example, 
  review 
  of 
  the 
  suspensions 
  could 
  have 
  been 
  moved 
  
outside 
  Dentistry 
  to 
  the 
  Senate 
  Academic 
  Appeals 
  Committee, 
  which 
  hears 
  appeals 
  on 
  
professionalism 
  matters 
  that 
  originate 
  within 
  Dentistry. 
   
  

 
  

63 
    
  

 There 
  was 
  another 
  opportunity 
  to 
  address 
  the 
  perception 
  of 
  conflict 
  of 
  interest 
  when 
  Student 
  B 
  
raised 
  the 
  issue 
  of 
  the 
  ASCC’s 
  impartiality, 
  along 
  with 
  a 
  number 
  of 
  other 
  procedural 
  fairness 
  
concerns, 
  at 
  the 
  hearing 
  into 
  his 
  suspension 
  and 
  in 
  his 
  submissions. 
  In 
  its 
  decision 
  of 
  March 
  6, 
  the 
  
ASSC 
  did 
  not 
  address 
  this 
  issue. 
   
  
The 
  failure 
  to 
  address 
  a 
  significant 
  conflict 
  of 
  interest 
  concern 
  damages 
  public 
  perception 
  of 
  the 
  
institution’s 
  commitment 
  to 
  fairness. 
   
  

 
  

64 
    
  

 Chapter 
  7. 
  The 
  Way 
  Forward 
  
The 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  prompted 
  our 
  inquiry 
  into 
  specific 
  equality 
  issues 
  inside 
  Dentistry. 
  We 
  also 
  
considered 
  the 
  University’s 
  policies 
  and 
  processes 
  and 
  the 
  broader 
  social 
  context. 
  Throughout, 
  our 
  
objective 
  was 
  to 
  understand 
  what 
  happened, 
  to 
  learn 
  as 
  much 
  as 
  we 
  could 
  from 
  this 
  case 
  study, 
  
and 
  to 
  offer 
  useful 
  guidance 
  for 
  the 
  future. 
  We 
  know 
  that 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group 
  was 
  not 
  unique, 
  
and 
  we 
  assume 
  that 
  Dalhousie 
  and 
  other 
  universities 
  will 
  face 
  similar 
  challenges 
  in 
  the 
  future. 
  
What 
  can 
  we 
  learn 
  from 
  this 
  experience 
  that 
  will 
  aid 
  in 
  efforts 
  to 
  dismantle 
  discrimination 
  and 
  
harassment 
  in 
  the 
  future? 
   
  
Undeniably, 
  these 
  are 
  complex 
  problems 
  with 
  no 
  easy 
  solutions. 
  The 
  participants 
  and 
  observers 
  
we 
  spoke 
  with 
  disagreed 
  about 
  how 
  to 
  characterize 
  what 
  happened, 
  what 
  caused 
  the 
  problem, 
  
how 
  to 
  analyze 
  it, 
  and 
  what 
  strategies 
  would 
  promote 
  positive 
  change. 
  None 
  of 
  this 
  is 
  surprising. 
  
There 
  are 
  no 
  right 
  answers. 
  But 
  there 
  are 
  some 
  wrong 
  ones. 
   
  
The 
  most 
  obvious 
  wrong 
  answer 
  would 
  be 
  to 
  minimize 
  what 
  happened. 
  We 
  were 
  told 
  that 
  when 
  
some 
  of 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group 
  members 
  returned 
  to 
  the 
  Clinic 
  after 
  the 
  restorative 
  justice 
  (RJ) 
  
process, 
  some 
  faculty 
  members 
  told 
  them 
  that 
  the 
  whole 
  thing 
  had 
  been 
  an 
  overreaction 
  and 
  that 
  
it 
  would 
  blow 
  over. 
  The 
  male 
  students 
  rejected 
  that 
  view. 
  They 
  faulted 
  their 
  instructors 
  for 
  failing 
  
to 
  understand 
  the 
  consequences 
  of 
  what 
  had 
  happened. 
  For 
  us, 
  that 
  underscored 
  the 
  significance 
  
of 
  the 
  RJ 
  process. 
  
It 
  is 
  true 
  that 
  within 
  the 
  range 
  of 
  the 
  frequent 
  misogynistic 
  and 
  homophobic 
  incidents 
  in 
  our 
  
society, 
  what 
  happened 
  here 
  does 
  not 
  rank 
  among 
  the 
  worst. 
  It 
  is 
  also 
  true 
  that 
  the 
  emotions 
  
aroused 
  by 
  the 
  posts 
  and 
  the 
  institutional 
  response 
  need 
  time 
  to 
  settle. 
  But 
  this 
  was 
  not 
  an 
  
isolated 
  incident, 
  and 
  the 
  status 
  quo 
  is 
  not 
  acceptable. 
  We 
  have 
  ample 
  evidence 
  of 
  sexism, 
  
misogyny, 
  and 
  homophobia 
  in 
  universities, 
  the 
  professions, 
  the 
  media, 
  the 
  police, 
  and 
  the 
  military. 
  
This 
  incident 
  is 
  an 
  opportunity 
  to 
  confront 
  inequalities 
  and 
  make 
  meaningful 
  change. 
  
Another 
  obvious 
  wrong 
  answer 
  would 
  be 
  to 
  be 
  defensive. 
  When 
  people 
  and 
  institutions 
  are 
  asked 
  
to 
  recognize 
  that 
  their 
  actions 
  and 
  beliefs 
  are 
  discriminatory, 
  the 
  immediate 
  and 
  understandable 
  
reaction, 
  which 
  we 
  heard 
  from 
  many, 
  is 
  to 
  simply 
  deny 
  it. 
  Denial 
  often 
  reveals 
  a 
  lack 
  of 
  knowledge 
  
about 
  inequality 
  and 
  the 
  harm 
  it 
  causes. 
  A 
  person 
  may 
  make 
  a 
  sexist 
  remark 
  with 
  no 
  intention 
  to 
  
offend, 
  but 
  the 
  comments 
  harm 
  the 
  individual 
  and 
  the 
  group 
  nonetheless. 
  The 
  most 
  prevalent 
  
forms 
  of 
  discrimination 
  often 
  happen 
  when 
  there 
  is 
  no 
  discriminatory 
  intent. 
  We 
  are 
  all 
  part 
  of 
  a 
  
sexist 
  and 
  heterosexist 
  culture, 
  and 
  we 
  all 
  need 
  to 
  get 
  past 
  our 
  personal 
  defensiveness 
  in 
  order 
  to 
  
change 
  it. 
  We 
  were 
  impressed 
  by 
  the 
  Dalhousie 
  administrators, 
  faculty, 
  staff, 
  and 
  students 
  we 
  met 
  
who 
  were 
  less 
  defensive, 
  acknowledged 
  the 
  problems, 
  and 
  wanted 
  to 
  work 
  for 
  change. 
  
One 
  of 
  the 
  most 
  positive 
  messages 
  we 
  took 
  away 
  from 
  the 
  many 
  participants 
  and 
  observers 
  who 
  
spoke 
  with 
  us 
  was 
  the 
  virtually 
  unanimous 
  agreement 
  on 
  objectives. 
  Everyone 
  agrees 
  on 
  the 
  
desired 
  outcome. 
  Everyone 
  wants 
  a 
  safe 
  campus, 
  a 
  non-­‐discriminatory 
  institution 
  that 
  provides 
  a 
  
diverse 
  community 
  with 
  an 
  inclusive 
  setting 
  for 
  education, 
  employment, 
  and 
  research. 
  Many 
  told 
  

 
  

65 
    
  

 us 
  that 
  they 
  would 
  like 
  to 
  see 
  Dalhousie 
  become 
  a 
  recognized 
  leader, 
  at 
  the 
  forefront 
  on 
  equity 
  
issues. 
  
We 
  have 
  grouped 
  our 
  conclusions 
  and 
  recommendations 
  about 
  how 
  to 
  move 
  forward 
  into 
  three 
  
parts: 
  
I. 
  
II. 
  
III. 
  

The 
  dental 
  school 
  culture 
   
  
The 
  University 
  administration 
   
  
The 
  wider 
  context: 
  the 
  University 
  community 
  and 
  society 
  generally 
  

I. 
  The 
  dental 
  school 
  culture 
  
A 
  need 
  to 
  embrace 
  progress 
  
The 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  did 
  not 
  emerge 
  in 
  a 
  vacuum, 
  but 
  within 
  a 
  particular 
  culture. 
  We 
  found 
  that 
  
modern 
  norms 
  about 
  equity 
  do 
  not 
  seem 
  to 
  have 
  gained 
  much 
  ground 
  in 
  Dentistry. 
  The 
  culture 
  
condoned 
  sexist, 
  misogynistic, 
  homophobic, 
  and 
  racist 
  behaviour. 
   
  
The 
  dental 
  school 
  reflects 
  the 
  historical, 
  male-­‐dominated 
  hierarchy 
  where 
  male 
  dentists 
  employ 
  
female 
  dental 
  hygienists, 
  dental 
  assistants, 
  and 
  office 
  managers. 
  Recent 
  decades 
  have 
  seen 
  the 
  
increasing 
  integration 
  of 
  women, 
  and 
  the 
  introduction 
  of 
  internationally 
  trained 
  men 
  and 
  a 
  few 
  
women 
  from 
  predominantly 
  racialized 
  groups, 
  but 
  this 
  has 
  yet 
  to 
  transform 
  the 
  culture. 
  
Dentistry 
  is 
  one 
  of 
  the 
  faculties 
  least 
  integrated 
  into 
  the 
  wider 
  University 
  culture. 
  Its 
  academic 
  and 
  
clinical 
  programs 
  focus 
  on 
  skills-­‐based 
  professional 
  training. 
  This 
  is 
  true 
  of 
  many 
  professional 
  
programs, 
  but 
  Dentistry 
  seems 
  to 
  be 
  more 
  isolated 
  than 
  other 
  professional 
  faculties 
  such 
  as 
  
medicine 
  and 
  law. 
  It 
  is 
  fundamentally 
  important 
  to 
  graduate 
  dental 
  students 
  who 
  are 
  technically 
  
competent, 
  and 
  this 
  is 
  something 
  the 
  dental 
  school 
  does 
  very 
  well. 
  It 
  is 
  also 
  important 
  to 
  recognize 
  
that 
  publicly 
  funded 
  university 
  education 
  and 
  research 
  is 
  not 
  intended 
  only 
  to 
  prepare 
  competent 
  
professionals 
  for 
  practice. 
  The 
  public 
  has 
  an 
  interest 
  in 
  ensuring 
  that 
  the 
  structure 
  and 
  culture 
  of 
  
the 
  profession, 
  as 
  well 
  as 
  models 
  of 
  dental 
  health 
  care 
  delivery, 
  are 
  being 
  reviewed 
  and 
  critiqued 
  
rather 
  than 
  simply 
  reproduced. 
  More 
  inter-­‐disciplinary 
  linkages, 
  cross-­‐appointments, 
  and 
  research 
  
projects 
  with 
  other 
  faculties 
  could 
  help 
  integrate 
  dentistry 
  into 
  the 
  wider 
  University 
  community 
  
and 
  reduce 
  its 
  isolation. 
  Such 
  opportunities 
  may 
  be 
  found 
  in 
  medicine, 
  health 
  professions, 
  social 
  
sciences, 
  humanities, 
  gender 
  and 
  women’s 
  studies, 
  law, 
  and 
  management, 
  among 
  others. 
   
  
Rethinking 
  competition 
  
We 
  believe 
  that 
  the 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  encourages 
  an 
  undue 
  degree 
  of 
  competitiveness 
  among 
  
students 
  for 
  access 
  to 
  patients 
  and 
  resources. 
  This 
  has 
  been 
  rationalized 
  as 
  useful 
  preparation 
  for 
  
the 
  marketplace 
  competition, 
  but 
  the 
  dysfunctional 
  aspects 
  of 
  the 
  competition 
  overwhelm 
  the 
  
benefits. 
   
  
The 
  nearly 
  universal 
  perception 
  among 
  students 
  and 
  staff 
  that 
  the 
  competition 
  is 
  unfair 
  
exacerbates 
  the 
  problem. 
  Students 
  pointed 
  to 
  obvious 
  inequities 
  in 
  the 
  operation 
  of 
  the 
  patient 
  
allocation 
  system. 
  They 
  also 
  criticized 
  the 
  “guidelines” 
  governing 
  the 
  number 
  of 
  different 
  

 
  

66 
    
  

 procedures 
  they 
  must 
  complete. 
  These 
  are 
  effectively 
  requirements 
  for 
  graduation, 
  but 
  they 
  may 
  
be 
  varied 
  with 
  little 
  or 
  no 
  notice. 
  This 
  means 
  that 
  students 
  are 
  kept 
  in 
  suspense 
  until 
  the 
  very 
  last 
  
minute 
  about 
  whether 
  they 
  have 
  met 
  the 
  clinical 
  requirements 
  for 
  graduation. 
  
Inequalities 
  make 
  everyone 
  feel 
  badly 
  treated 
  
In 
  this 
  environment, 
  everyone 
  feels 
  badly 
  treated. 
  Students 
  disparaged 
  by 
  their 
  classmates 
  for 
  
being 
  “favourites” 
  with 
  the 
  faculty 
  feel 
  like 
  targets. 
  Students 
  who 
  pay 
  higher 
  tuition 
  see 
  
themselves 
  as 
  short-­‐changed, 
  while 
  others 
  see 
  them 
  as 
  prioritized. 
  Students 
  who 
  are 
  behind 
  on 
  
their 
  clinic 
  requirements 
  feel 
  disadvantaged, 
  but 
  so 
  do 
  students 
  who 
  have 
  completed 
  their 
  
requirements 
  and 
  worry 
  that 
  unless 
  they 
  keep 
  getting 
  more 
  patients, 
  their 
  skills 
  will 
  get 
  rusty. 
  
Women 
  who 
  get 
  extra 
  attention 
  from 
  instructors 
  feel 
  sexually 
  harassed, 
  while 
  others 
  believe 
  that 
  
they 
  are 
  using 
  their 
  bodies 
  to 
  gain 
  advantage. 
  In 
  the 
  end, 
  all 
  of 
  the 
  students 
  are 
  preoccupied 
  with 
  
their 
  experiences 
  of 
  disadvantage 
  and 
  no 
  one 
  sees 
  the 
  advantages 
  they 
  enjoy. 
  
The 
  hierarchy 
  within 
  Dentistry 
  contributes 
  to 
  a 
  culture 
  of 
  inequality. 
  The 
  school 
  must 
  take 
  steps 
  to 
  
ensure 
  that 
  faculty 
  and 
  students 
  of 
  dental 
  hygiene 
  are 
  treated 
  equitably, 
  and 
  that 
  international 
  
students 
  are 
  given 
  neither 
  preferential 
  nor 
  inferior 
  treatment 
  compared 
  with 
  Canadian 
  students. 
  
Professors 
  and 
  students 
  do 
  not 
  seem 
  to 
  be 
  held 
  to 
  the 
  same 
  standards 
  of 
  behaviour. 
  The 
  students 
  
describe 
  a 
  punitive 
  pedagogical 
  style, 
  where 
  faculty 
  members 
  criticize 
  students 
  inappropriately 
  in 
  
public 
  and 
  treat 
  them 
  like 
  children. 
  This 
  is 
  especially 
  acute 
  in 
  the 
  Clinic. 
  Students 
  who 
  attempt 
  to 
  
call 
  professors 
  to 
  account 
  for 
  inappropriate 
  behaviour 
  are 
  ignored 
  or 
  told 
  they 
  are 
  being 
  
unprofessional. 
  There 
  is 
  very 
  little 
  evidence 
  that 
  faculty 
  members 
  are 
  regularly 
  monitored 
  or 
  held 
  
accountable 
  for 
  inappropriate 
  behaviour. 
  
The 
  predominantly 
  female 
  staff 
  appear 
  to 
  carry 
  out 
  their 
  responsibilities 
  with 
  competence 
  and 
  
dedication, 
  but 
  do 
  not 
  feel 
  that 
  they 
  are 
  treated 
  as 
  part 
  of 
  a 
  professional 
  team. 
   
  Based 
  on 
  the 
  
many 
  blatant 
  incidents 
  of 
  mistreatment 
  recounted 
  to 
  us, 
  there 
  is 
  good 
  reason 
  to 
  believe 
  that 
  the 
  
management 
  style 
  in 
  the 
  dental 
  school 
  has 
  rendered 
  staff 
  working 
  conditions 
  unacceptable. 
  This 
  
must 
  be 
  addressed 
  without 
  delay. 
  
Tools 
  for 
  moving 
  forward 
  
Individual 
  complaints 
  cannot 
  be 
  relied 
  upon 
  to 
  rectify 
  faculty-­‐wide 
  problems. 
  Systemic 
  measures 
  
hold 
  more 
  promise. 
  Other 
  institutions 
  have 
  used 
  “chilly 
  climate” 
  reports, 
  anonymous 
  workplace 
  
surveys, 
  and 
  spot 
  audits 
  to 
  shift 
  the 
  focus. 
  These 
  are 
  not 
  meant 
  to 
  target 
  individuals, 
  or 
  to 
  result 
  in 
  
specific 
  disciplinary 
  outcomes. 
  The 
  objective 
  is 
  to 
  gather 
  information 
  that 
  can 
  be 
  used 
  to 
  make 
  
structural 
  changes 
  and 
  nurture 
  healthier 
  environments. 
   
  
The 
  RJ 
  process 
  benefitted 
  many 
  of 
  the 
  participating 
  dental 
  students. 
  They 
  developed 
  a 
  deeper 
  and 
  
more 
  sophisticated 
  understanding 
  of 
  sexism, 
  misogyny, 
  and 
  homophobia. 
  Despite 
  this 
  outcome, 
  
we 
  do 
  not 
  support 
  a 
  departure 
  from 
  the 
  province-­‐wide 
  moratorium 
  on 
  the 
  use 
  of 
  RJ 
  in 
  cases 
  of 
  
sexual 
  abuse 
  and 
  intimate 
  partner 
  violence. 
  We 
  recognize 
  the 
  serious 
  concerns 
  that 
  led 
  to 
  the 
  
moratorium 
  and 
  the 
  need 
  to 
  continue 
  it. 
  However, 
  an 
  independent 
  external 
  review 
  of 
  RJ 
  in 
  this 
  

 
  

67 
    
  

 instance 
  could 
  answer 
  some 
  important 
  questions. 
  Did 
  this 
  RJ 
  process 
  replicate 
  some 
  of 
  the 
  
problems 
  that 
  gave 
  rise 
  to 
  the 
  moratorium? 
  Were 
  there 
  elements 
  that 
  reduced 
  these 
  risks 
  and 
  
improved 
  the 
  prospects 
  for 
  success? 
  Did 
  the 
  fact 
  that 
  the 
  misconduct 
  involved 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  
(words 
  and 
  images 
  rather 
  than 
  specific 
  acts 
  of 
  sexual 
  or 
  physical 
  abuse) 
  make 
  a 
  difference? 
  Did 
  the 
  
serious 
  sanctions 
  that 
  would 
  flow 
  from 
  failure 
  to 
  participate 
  enhance 
  its 
  success? 
  Was 
  the 
  
inclusion 
  of 
  the 
  larger 
  peer 
  group 
  critical 
  to 
  the 
  success 
  of 
  the 
  process? 
  RJ 
  may 
  have 
  significant 
  
potential 
  to 
  create 
  change 
  within 
  communities 
  like 
  the 
  dental 
  school, 
  where 
  generalized 
  sexism, 
  
misogyny, 
  and 
  homophobia 
  require 
  intensive 
  educational 
  and 
  cultural 
  transformation. 
  Fuller 
  
examination 
  is 
  essential, 
  along 
  with 
  respectful 
  consultation 
  with 
  the 
  violence-­‐against-­‐women 
  
organizations 
  and 
  those 
  who 
  lobbied 
  for 
  the 
  moratorium 
  on 
  RJ. 
   
  
Teaching 
  of 
  ethics 
  and 
  professionalism 
  must 
  expand 
  beyond 
  the 
  present 
  curriculum. 
  The 
  courses 
  
could 
  examine 
  a 
  wider 
  range 
  of 
  questions 
  about 
  the 
  delivery 
  of 
  dental 
  services: 
  Does 
  dentistry, 
  
like 
  other 
  professions, 
  have 
  a 
  problem 
  with 
  sexual 
  harassment 
  of 
  staff 
  and 
  patients? 
  Do 
  survivors 
  
of 
  intimate 
  partner 
  violence, 
  sexual 
  assault, 
  and 
  child 
  sexual 
  abuse 
  have 
  special 
  vulnerabilities 
  
with 
  respect 
  to 
  dental 
  services? 
  How 
  do 
  gender, 
  race, 
  disability, 
  substance 
  abuse, 
  heterosexism, 
  
and 
  class 
  discrimination 
  affect 
  access 
  to 
  dental 
  services 
  and 
  delivery 
  of 
  appropriate 
  treatments? 
  
These 
  are 
  only 
  a 
  few 
  examples 
  of 
  educational 
  and 
  research 
  opportunities 
  that 
  might 
  enhance 
  
dental 
  students’ 
  understanding 
  of 
  equity. 
  
Dalhousie’s 
  dental 
  school 
  is 
  not 
  unique. 
  We 
  heard 
  that 
  other 
  faculties 
  and 
  other 
  dental 
  schools 
  
have 
  the 
  same 
  or 
  worse 
  problems. 
  The 
  problems 
  surfaced 
  so 
  publicly 
  here 
  because 
  of 
  the 
  strength 
  
of 
  the 
  protesting 
  voices 
  and 
  the 
  receptivity 
  in 
  some 
  quarters 
  of 
  the 
  institution 
  to 
  hearing 
  the 
  
message 
  and 
  bringing 
  about 
  change. 
  Dalhousie 
  has 
  much 
  expertise, 
  and 
  many 
  people 
  with 
  specific 
  
skills 
  and 
  knowledge 
  about 
  equity 
  issues 
  who 
  can 
  contribute 
  to 
  change. 
  
Recommendations: 
  
1.

The 
  professors 
  and 
  administrators 
  within 
  the 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  collectively 
  agree 
  
on 
  the 
  necessity 
  for 
  fundamental 
  change, 
  including 
  a 
  commitment 
  to 
  implementing 
  the 
  
recommendations 
  in 
  this 
  Report. 
  This 
  should 
  entail 
  developing 
  an 
  action 
  plan 
  with 
  defined 
  
goals, 
  timelines, 
  and 
  identification 
  of 
  people 
  to 
  be 
  responsible 
  for 
  implementation. 
   
  

2.

The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  improve 
  the 
  complaint 
  system 
  so 
  that 
  faculty 
  members, 
  
students, 
  and 
  staff 
  understand 
  clearly 
  when, 
  where, 
  and 
  how 
  they 
  may 
  lodge 
  a 
  complaint. 
  
The 
  complaint 
  system 
  should 
  ensure 
  that 
  complaints 
  are 
  processed 
  promptly, 
  fairly, 
  and 
  
transparently, 
  and 
  that 
  complainants 
  are 
  made 
  aware 
  of 
  the 
  outcome. 
   
  

3.

Notwithstanding 
  the 
  implementation 
  of 
  an 
  improved 
  complaints 
  system, 
  the 
  Faculty 
  of 
  
Dentistry 
  should 
  use 
  systemic, 
  non-­‐punitive 
  ways 
  to 
  identify 
  and 
  obtain 
  information 
  about 
  
potential 
  or 
  actual 
  problems. 
  These 
  may 
  include 
  “chilly 
  climate” 
  reports, 
  anonymous 
  
workplace 
  surveys, 
  and 
  spot 
  audits. 
  

 
  

68 
    
  

 4.

The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  implement 
  measures 
  to 
  improve 
  working 
  conditions 
  for 
  
staff, 
  specifically 
  those 
  related 
  to 
  unacceptable 
  treatment 
  by 
  managers 
  and 
  students. 
   
  

5.

The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  change 
  the 
  patient 
  distribution/clinical 
  credit 
  system 
  to 
  
ensure 
  fairness 
  and 
  reduce 
  excessive 
  competition 
  and 
  patient 
  hoarding. 
  

6.

The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  monitor 
  social 
  and 
  other 
  extra-­‐curricular 
  events 
  at 
  the 
  
dental 
  school 
  to 
  prevent 
  facilitation 
  of 
  sexist, 
  heterosexist, 
  misogynistic, 
  or 
  racist 
  behaviour. 
  
Events 
  that 
  do 
  not 
  contribute 
  to 
  such 
  behaviour 
  should 
  be 
  reinstated. 
  

7.

The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  improve 
  the 
  integration 
  of 
  the 
  School 
  of 
  Dental 
  Hygiene 
  
within 
  the 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry. 
  One 
  possible 
  step 
  might 
  be 
  to 
  appoint 
  an 
  assistant 
  dean 
  
from 
  among 
  the 
  senior 
  administrators 
  for 
  the 
  School 
  of 
  Dental 
  Hygiene. 
   
  

8.

The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  eliminate 
  any 
  inequitable 
  treatment 
  of 
  Qualifying 
  Program 
  
students. 
  They 
  should 
  be 
  fully 
  integrated 
  into 
  their 
  classes, 
  and 
  recognized 
  for 
  the 
  expertise 
  
they 
  bring 
  to 
  the 
  school. 
  The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  also 
  seek 
  to 
  ensure 
  that 
  students 
  
from 
  the 
  United 
  States 
  do 
  not 
  receive 
  either 
  preferential 
  or 
  discriminatory 
  treatment. 
  

9.

The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  seek 
  ways 
  to 
  celebrate 
  the 
  role 
  that 
  female, 
  racialized, 
  and 
  
LGBTQ 
  dentists 
  have 
  played 
  in 
  the 
  dental 
  profession, 
  recognizing 
  both 
  their 
  struggles 
  and 
  
their 
  successes. 
  

10.

The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  collect 
  data 
  to 
  provide 
  information 
  on 
  the 
  diversity 
  of 
  the 
  
student 
  body 
  by 
  inviting 
  students 
  who 
  wish 
  to 
  do 
  so 
  to 
  self-­‐identify, 
  confidentially, 
  with 
  
regard 
  to 
  sex, 
  sexual 
  orientation, 
  socio-­‐economic 
  background, 
  racialization, 
  indigeneity, 
  and 
  
disability 
  status. 
  Aggregate 
  data 
  should 
  be 
  reported 
  to 
  the 
  University’s 
  Senate 
  and 
  released 
  
to 
  the 
  public 
  annually. 
  The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  also 
  consider 
  introducing 
  a 
  
designated 
  recruitment 
  program 
  for 
  Indigenous 
  and 
  Black 
  communities. 
   
  

11.

The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  survey 
  faculty 
  members 
  and 
  staff 
  to 
  build 
  longitudinal 
  data 
  
on 
  the 
  same 
  axes 
  of 
  diversity 
  as 
  set 
  out 
  in 
  Recommendation 
  10. 
   
  

12.

The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  create 
  an 
  internal 
  council 
  or 
  committee 
  on 
  inclusion 
  and 
  
diversity. 
   
  

13.

The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  conduct 
  an 
  independent 
  external 
  review 
  to 
  determine 
  
whether 
  RJ 
  sessions, 
  properly 
  constituted 
  to 
  ensure 
  voluntary 
  and 
  inclusive 
  participation, 
  
could 
  assist 
  in 
  attitudinal 
  and 
  behavioural 
  change 
  in 
  the 
  student 
  body, 
  staff, 
  and 
  faculty 
  
members 
  of 
  the 
  dental 
  school. 
  

 
  

69 
    
  

 14.

The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  collaborate 
  with 
  other 
  dental 
  schools, 
  professional 
  licensing 
  
boards, 
  and 
  professional 
  associations 
  across 
  Canada 
  to 
  address 
  equity 
  and 
  sexual 
  
misconduct 
  within 
  the 
  profession. 
  

15.

The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  consider 
  ways 
  to 
  reduce 
  its 
  isolation 
  from 
  the 
  University 
  as 
  a 
  
whole, 
  such 
  as 
  through 
  cross-­‐appointments 
  with 
  other 
  faculties 
  and 
  by 
  seeking 
  to 
  
incorporate 
  wider 
  perspectives 
  on 
  inter-­‐disciplinary 
  research 
  and 
  education. 
   
  

16.

The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  improve 
  the 
  effectiveness 
  of 
  ethics 
  and 
  professionalism 
  
education 
  for 
  dental 
  students. 
  Steps 
  in 
  doing 
  so 
  should 
  include 
  making 
  the 
  courses 
  more 
  
central 
  to 
  the 
  curriculum, 
  integrating 
  learning 
  on 
  these 
  subjects 
  with 
  other 
  courses 
  and 
  
Clinic 
  activities, 
  and 
  including 
  issues 
  relating 
  to 
  sexism, 
  misogyny, 
  homophobia, 
  racism, 
  
disability, 
  and 
  discrimination. 
   
  

17.

Over 
  the 
  next 
  three 
  years, 
  the 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  report 
  regularly 
  to 
  the 
  Senate 
  and 
  
President 
  on 
  its 
  progress 
  in 
  implementing 
  these 
  recommendations. 
  

II. 
  The 
  University 
  administration 
  
Preliminary 
  observations 
  
The 
  University’s 
  decisions 
  and 
  actions 
  were 
  taken 
  under 
  intense 
  public 
  scrutiny 
  and 
  pressure 
  for 
  
immediate 
  response. 
  By 
  contrast, 
  we 
  have 
  the 
  advantage 
  of 
  hindsight 
  and 
  reflection 
  and 
  can 
  see 
  
what 
  happened 
  with 
  a 
  degree 
  of 
  objectivity 
  and 
  distance. 
   
  
We 
  believe 
  that 
  all 
  decision-­‐makers 
  acted 
  in 
  good 
  faith, 
  and 
  in 
  what 
  they 
  believed 
  to 
  be 
  the 
  best 
  
interests 
  of 
  the 
  University 
  and 
  the 
  students 
  involved. 
  This 
  was 
  a 
  complex 
  situation 
  with 
  multiple 
  
ways 
  of 
  understanding 
  what 
  had 
  happened. 
  Reasonable 
  people 
  can 
  differ 
  on 
  what 
  should 
  be 
  done 
  
in 
  such 
  circumstances, 
  and 
  we 
  see 
  the 
  differences 
  that 
  have 
  emerged 
  in 
  that 
  light. 
  Our 
  assessment 
  
of 
  the 
  University’s 
  actions 
  does 
  not 
  cast 
  aspersions 
  on 
  any 
  individual’s 
  motives 
  or 
  intentions, 
  nor 
  
does 
  it 
  assign 
  blame. 
   
  
Our 
  critical 
  review 
  of 
  the 
  University’s 
  response 
  to 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  is 
  intended 
  to 
  be 
  
constructive, 
  to 
  provide 
  guidance 
  for 
  the 
  University 
  for 
  the 
  future 
  when 
  incidents 
  of 
  this 
  nature 
  
arise—as 
  they 
  surely 
  will. 
  Dalhousie 
  certainly 
  does 
  not 
  stand 
  in 
  isolation. 
  What 
  happened 
  here 
  
could 
  happen, 
  and 
  may 
  already 
  be 
  happening, 
  at 
  other 
  universities. 
  We 
  hope 
  our 
  comments 
  may 
  
be 
  of 
  use 
  to 
  them 
  in 
  the 
  future 
  as 
  well. 
  
The 
  University’s 
  decisions 
  
Looking 
  back, 
  the 
  University’s 
  decisions 
  in 
  response 
  to 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  can 
  be 
  grouped 
  around 
  
three 
  critical 
  moments. 
  The 
  first 
  was 
  when 
  Student 
  A 
  made 
  the 
  initial 
  complaint. 
  The 
  second 
  was 
  
when 
  the 
  media 
  published 
  the 
  screenshots. 
  The 
  third 
  was 
  when 
  Dentistry 
  suspended 
  the 
  
identified 
  Facebook 
  posters. 
  These 
  three 
  points 
  provide 
  a 
  useful 
  framework 
  for 
  our 
  analysis. 
  

 
  

70 
    
  

 The 
  initial 
  complaint 
  
Student 
  A 
  met 
  with 
  the 
  Vice-­‐Provost 
  on 
  December 
  8, 
  2014. 
  She 
  brought 
  the 
  initial 
  screenshot, 
  and 
  
a 
  written 
  complaint 
  that 
  she 
  wanted 
  to 
  file 
  under 
  the 
  Code, 
  and 
  she 
  would 
  have 
  provided 
  further 
  
information 
  in 
  her 
  discussion 
  with 
  the 
  Vice-­‐Provost. 
  It 
  is 
  clear 
  that 
  Student 
  A 
  wanted 
  to 
  proceed 
  
under 
  the 
  Code; 
  it 
  is 
  less 
  clear 
  whether 
  she 
  wanted 
  to 
  be 
  the 
  complainant 
  or 
  wanted 
  the 
  
University 
  to 
  take 
  action. 
   
  
The 
  Vice-­‐Provost 
  had 
  a 
  number 
  of 
  options. 
  Both 
  the 
  Code 
  and 
  the 
  Policy 
  apply 
  to 
  allegations 
  of 
  
sexual 
  harassment. 
  The 
  Code 
  permits 
  the 
  Vice-­‐Provost 
  to 
  accept 
  a 
  complaint 
  from 
  an 
  affected 
  
person, 
  but 
  it 
  also 
  permits 
  the 
  University 
  to 
  take 
  action. 
  Although 
  not 
  explicitly 
  stated, 
  it 
  has 
  been 
  
interpreted 
  to 
  permit 
  University 
  authorities, 
  such 
  as 
  the 
  director 
  of 
  security 
  services, 
  to 
  make 
  a 
  
complaint. 
  The 
  Policy 
  only 
  permits 
  complaints 
  made 
  by 
  the 
  person(s) 
  alleging 
  sexual 
  harassment. 
  
However, 
  it 
  authorizes 
  “administrative 
  heads” 
  (the 
  Vice-­‐Provost 
  in 
  this 
  case) 
  to 
  undertake 
  a 
  review 
  
of 
  the 
  work 
  or 
  study 
  environment, 
  even 
  where 
  there 
  is 
  no 
  complaint. 
  Both 
  the 
  Code 
  and 
  the 
  Policy 
  
contemplate 
  informal 
  as 
  well 
  as 
  formal 
  processes. 
  Even 
  if 
  a 
  formal 
  process 
  starts, 
  there 
  are 
  
opportunities 
  to 
  try 
  to 
  resolve 
  matters 
  informally 
  under 
  both 
  the 
  Code 
  and 
  the 
  Policy. 
  
The 
  formal 
  processes 
  under 
  the 
  Code 
  and 
  the 
  Policy 
  are 
  similar. 
  There 
  is 
  an 
  information-­‐gathering 
  
stage, 
  such 
  as 
  an 
  investigation, 
  which 
  includes 
  a 
  decision 
  based 
  on 
  that 
  information 
  about 
  
whether 
  the 
  conduct 
  violates 
  the 
  Code 
  or 
  Policy. 
  The 
  investigation 
  stage 
  does 
  not 
  result 
  in 
  any 
  
discipline. 
  There 
  is 
  an 
  opportunity 
  for 
  informal 
  resolution 
  at 
  that 
  point. 
  If 
  formal 
  discipline 
  is 
  
considered, 
  a 
  procedurally 
  fair 
  discipline 
  process 
  is 
  required 
  and 
  any 
  sanction 
  must 
  be 
  based 
  on 
  
the 
  evidence 
  produced 
  in 
  that 
  process. 
  
Both 
  the 
  Code 
  and 
  the 
  Policy 
  also 
  permit 
  interim 
  measures 
  where 
  necessary. 
  Once 
  a 
  complaint 
  
has 
  been 
  accepted 
  under 
  the 
  Code, 
  the 
  President 
  may 
  impose 
  an 
  interim 
  suspension. 
  The 
  Policy 
  
empowers 
  the 
  University 
  to 
  take 
  any 
  necessary 
  steps 
  during 
  the 
  processing 
  of 
  a 
  complaint 
  to 
  
ensure 
  the 
  health, 
  safety, 
  and 
  security 
  of 
  anyone 
  on 
  campus. 
   
  
Initially, 
  the 
  Vice-­‐Provost 
  declined 
  to 
  accept 
  Student 
  A’s 
  complaint 
  under 
  the 
  Code, 
  saying 
  she 
  
needed 
  to 
  consider 
  what 
  process 
  was 
  appropriate. 
  She 
  then 
  initiated 
  a 
  different 
  procedure, 
  of 
  
which 
  Student 
  A 
  could 
  not 
  have 
  been 
  aware 
  because 
  it 
  is 
  not 
  a 
  published 
  University 
  policy, 
  and, 
  at 
  
the 
  time, 
  had 
  no 
  written 
  terms 
  of 
  reference. 
  This 
  was 
  to 
  convene 
  a 
  student-­‐in-­‐crisis 
  team 
  meeting. 
  
This 
  is 
  a 
  process 
  that 
  allows 
  the 
  University 
  to 
  act 
  quickly 
  where 
  a 
  student 
  may 
  be 
  at 
  risk 
  of 
  harm 
  or 
  
may 
  pose 
  a 
  threat 
  to 
  the 
  University 
  community. 
  
It 
  is 
  not 
  clear 
  why 
  the 
  Vice-­‐Provost 
  chose 
  this 
  option. 
  We 
  do 
  not 
  know 
  of 
  any 
  evidence 
  at 
  the 
  time 
  
that 
  would 
  have 
  triggered 
  the 
  need 
  for 
  this 
  option 
  as 
  it 
  was 
  described 
  to 
  us, 
  but 
  perhaps 
  it 
  was 
  
done 
  out 
  of 
  an 
  abundance 
  of 
  caution. 
  Student 
  A 
  was 
  not 
  informed 
  about 
  this 
  action. 
   
  
The 
  next 
  day, 
  having 
  decided 
  there 
  was 
  no 
  need 
  for 
  interim 
  action 
  through 
  the 
  student-­‐in-­‐crisis 
  
process, 
  the 
  Vice-­‐Provost 
  decided 
  that 
  the 
  matter 
  should 
  proceed 
  under 
  the 
  Policy, 
  not 
  the 
  Code. 
  
She 
  directed 
  Student 
  A 
  to 
  the 
  HREHP 
  office. 
   
  

 
  

71 
    
  

 The 
  Vice-­‐Provost 
  clearly 
  had 
  the 
  power 
  to 
  make 
  this 
  decision. 
  What 
  factors 
  should 
  be 
  considered 
  
in 
  making 
  it? 
  The 
  only 
  information 
  she 
  had 
  at 
  the 
  time 
  was 
  the 
  initial 
  screenshot 
  and 
  what 
  Student 
  
A 
  told 
  her. 
  One 
  factor 
  should 
  have 
  been 
  the 
  respective 
  expertise 
  of 
  those 
  who 
  would 
  be 
  involved 
  
in 
  a 
  Code 
  complaint 
  as 
  compared 
  with 
  a 
  complaint 
  under 
  the 
  Policy. 
  A 
  further 
  factor 
  should 
  have 
  
been 
  resources 
  and 
  support, 
  and 
  which 
  were 
  best 
  suited 
  to 
  the 
  needs 
  of 
  the 
  parties 
  in 
  this 
  
situation. 
  One 
  very 
  important 
  consideration 
  was 
  Student 
  A’s 
  request 
  that 
  the 
  University 
  take 
  
action. 
  Together 
  with 
  the 
  screenshot 
  identifying 
  a 
  substantial 
  number 
  of 
  fourth-­‐year 
  dental 
  
students, 
  Student 
  A’s 
  description 
  of 
  her 
  complaint 
  should 
  have 
  aroused 
  concern 
  that 
  this 
  was 
  not 
  
an 
  incident 
  between 
  a 
  few 
  individuals, 
  but 
  potentially 
  a 
  much 
  more 
  complex 
  situation 
  that 
  might 
  
require 
  the 
  University 
  to 
  assume 
  responsibility. 
   
  
Our 
  Task 
  Force 
  has 
  no 
  basis 
  for 
  questioning 
  the 
  substance 
  of 
  the 
  Vice-­‐Provost’s 
  decision 
  that 
  there 
  
was 
  no 
  need 
  for 
  interim 
  action 
  or 
  her 
  decision 
  that 
  Student 
  A 
  should 
  make 
  a 
  complaint 
  under 
  the 
  
Policy. 
  Nonetheless, 
  there 
  are 
  two 
  matters 
  of 
  concern. 
  
One 
  is 
  that 
  with 
  no 
  written 
  basis 
  for 
  the 
  student-­‐in-­‐crisis 
  process, 
  it 
  lacks 
  a 
  degree 
  of 
  legitimacy. 
  
The 
  other 
  is 
  the 
  lack 
  of 
  indication 
  that 
  anyone 
  seriously 
  considered 
  the 
  possibility 
  of 
  the 
  
University’s 
  assuming 
  carriage 
  of 
  the 
  matter. 
  That 
  option 
  was 
  available 
  under 
  both 
  the 
  Code 
  and 
  
the 
  Policy. 
  Looking 
  back, 
  this 
  was 
  an 
  opportunity 
  missed. 
   
  
The 
  screenshots 
  are 
  published 
  in 
  the 
  media 
  
Student 
  A 
  provided 
  many 
  more 
  screenshots. 
  HREHP 
  met 
  with 
  Student 
  A 
  and 
  other 
  women 
  who 
  
came 
  forward. 
  There 
  was 
  a 
  clear 
  divergence 
  of 
  views, 
  with 
  Student 
  A 
  committed 
  to 
  a 
  formal 
  
process. 
  The 
  dental 
  school 
  made 
  arrangements 
  for 
  Student 
  A 
  to 
  write 
  her 
  exams 
  separately. 
  All 
  of 
  
this 
  happened 
  before 
  December 
  15. 
  Matters 
  were 
  progressing. 
  
When 
  the 
  issue 
  hit 
  the 
  media 
  with 
  publication 
  of 
  multiple 
  posts, 
  things 
  changed. 
  The 
  President 
  
became 
  involved, 
  saying 
  he 
  needed 
  48 
  hours 
  to 
  decide 
  what 
  action 
  to 
  take. 
  It 
  is 
  unclear 
  why 
  he 
  
needed 
  48 
  hours. 
  The 
  Vice-­‐Provost 
  had 
  already 
  directed 
  Student 
  A 
  to 
  make 
  a 
  complaint 
  under 
  the 
  
Policy. 
  Student 
  A 
  had 
  gone 
  to 
  the 
  HREHP 
  office, 
  asked 
  the 
  University 
  to 
  take 
  charge 
  of 
  the 
  matter, 
  
and 
  advised 
  them 
  that 
  the 
  informal 
  process 
  was 
  unacceptable. 
   
  
At 
  this 
  stage, 
  the 
  University 
  might 
  have 
  considered 
  exercising 
  its 
  powers 
  under 
  the 
  Code 
  or 
  Policy 
  
to 
  assume 
  responsibility 
  for 
  the 
  matter 
  and 
  address 
  it 
  as 
  a 
  systemic 
  issue, 
  but 
  we 
  do 
  not 
  know 
  if 
  
this 
  was 
  discussed. 
  The 
  disagreement 
  between 
  the 
  women 
  who 
  had 
  come 
  forward 
  about 
  a 
  formal 
  
or 
  informal 
  process 
  under 
  the 
  Policy 
  could 
  have 
  been 
  addressed 
  by 
  supporting 
  Student 
  A 
  and 
  
others 
  who 
  wanted 
  a 
  formal 
  process 
  to 
  complete 
  a 
  written 
  complaint, 
  giving 
  it 
  to 
  the 
  respondents, 
  
and 
  appointing 
  an 
  investigator. 
  HREHP 
  could 
  also 
  have 
  moved 
  forward 
  to 
  find 
  out 
  the 
  extent 
  of 
  
students’ 
  interest 
  in 
  an 
  RJ 
  process. 
  The 
  students 
  identified 
  as 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  could 
  also 
  have 
  
been 
  suspended 
  pending 
  the 
  outcome 
  of 
  the 
  investigation. 
  
The 
  University 
  only 
  proceeded 
  by 
  initiating 
  the 
  RJ 
  process. 
  On 
  December 
  17, 
  the 
  President 
  
announced 
  that 
  a 
  number 
  of 
  women 
  targeted 
  in 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  had 
  chosen 
  RJ, 
  and 
  explained 
  

 
  

72 
    
  

 what 
  that 
  was. 
  He 
  noted 
  that 
  others 
  could 
  pursue 
  formal 
  complaints 
  under 
  the 
  Policy 
  and 
  that 
  
various 
  disciplinary 
  actions 
  were 
  available. 
  He 
  rejected 
  the 
  call 
  for 
  an 
  investigation. 
  
Four 
  days 
  later, 
  a 
  group 
  of 
  four 
  Dalhousie 
  faculty 
  members 
  outside 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  lodged 
  a 
  
complaint 
  under 
  the 
  Code, 
  calling 
  for 
  an 
  investigation 
  and 
  the 
  suspension 
  of 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posters. 
  
That 
  complaint 
  was 
  rejected 
  on 
  January 
  10. 
  
We 
  have 
  some 
  concerns 
  with 
  what 
  was 
  decided 
  at 
  this 
  time. 
   
  
In 
  our 
  view, 
  an 
  investigation 
  was 
  critical, 
  and 
  it 
  was 
  not 
  inconsistent 
  with 
  the 
  RJ 
  process. 
  An 
  
investigation 
  is 
  not 
  the 
  same 
  as 
  a 
  disciplinary 
  proceeding. 
  The 
  Code 
  and 
  Policy 
  make 
  it 
  clear 
  that 
  
an 
  investigation 
  provides 
  the 
  basis 
  for 
  deciding 
  whether 
  disciplinary 
  proceedings 
  are 
  needed. 
  If 
  
the 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  had 
  been 
  framed 
  as 
  a 
  systemic 
  matter, 
  an 
  investigation 
  would 
  have 
  focused 
  
on 
  those 
  issues 
  rather 
  than 
  on 
  individual 
  actions, 
  and 
  would 
  have 
  made 
  findings 
  and 
  
recommendations 
  for 
  change 
  at 
  the 
  institutional 
  level. 
  Both 
  Dalhousie 
  faculty 
  members 
  and 
  the 
  
public 
  were 
  raising 
  concerns 
  about 
  what 
  had 
  happened 
  and 
  what 
  was 
  being 
  done 
  about 
  it. 
  There 
  
was 
  much 
  speculation 
  and 
  misunderstanding. 
  An 
  investigation 
  could 
  have 
  provided 
  an 
  effective 
  
response. 
  We 
  do 
  not 
  question 
  the 
  Vice-­‐Provost’s 
  reasons 
  for 
  rejecting 
  the 
  Dalhousie 
  Faculty 
  
Complaint, 
  but 
  we 
  note 
  that 
  by 
  doing 
  so, 
  the 
  University 
  lost 
  another 
  opportunity 
  to 
  undertake 
  an 
  
investigation. 
  
Further, 
  while 
  we 
  agree 
  that 
  RJ 
  was 
  a 
  useful 
  process 
  that 
  achieved 
  significant 
  results 
  in 
  this 
  case, 
  
we 
  have 
  reservations 
  about 
  how 
  it 
  was 
  established, 
  some 
  aspects 
  of 
  its 
  process, 
  and 
  its 
  
relationship 
  to 
  other 
  processes. 
  In 
  setting 
  them 
  out, 
  we 
  do 
  not 
  intend 
  to 
  diminish 
  the 
  great 
  value 
  
of 
  RJ 
  to 
  its 
  participants. 
  
First, 
  RJ 
  was 
  established 
  without 
  adequate 
  information 
  on 
  its 
  mandate. 
  It 
  came 
  as 
  a 
  surprise 
  to 
  
many 
  to 
  discover 
  in 
  its 
  report 
  that 
  its 
  mandate 
  was 
  “to 
  investigate 
  the 
  matter, 
  address 
  the 
  harms 
  
it 
  caused 
  and 
  examine 
  the 
  climate 
  and 
  culture 
  within 
  the 
  Faculty 
  that 
  may 
  have 
  influenced 
  the 
  
offensive 
  nature 
  of 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group’s 
  content.” 
  We 
  heard 
  from 
  many 
  that 
  they 
  were 
  surprised 
  
to 
  find 
  that 
  RJ 
  included 
  an 
  investigation 
  and 
  that 
  its 
  scope 
  extended 
  to 
  Dentistry 
  culture 
  and 
  
climate. 
  It 
  is 
  also 
  not 
  clear 
  that 
  all 
  RJ 
  students 
  received 
  the 
  same 
  information 
  about 
  the 
  Facebook 
  
posts. 
  
Second, 
  it 
  is 
  not 
  clear 
  that 
  the 
  RJ 
  process 
  was 
  capable 
  of 
  conducting 
  the 
  kind 
  of 
  independent 
  
investigation 
  that 
  leads 
  to 
  reliable 
  findings 
  of 
  fact. 
  Not 
  all 
  of 
  those 
  involved 
  with 
  or 
  implicated 
  by 
  
the 
  Facebook 
  incident 
  participated 
  in 
  RJ. 
  Certain 
  key 
  individuals, 
  such 
  as 
  Student 
  A 
  and 
  Student 
  B, 
  
were 
  not 
  interviewed 
  as 
  part 
  of 
  an 
  investigation, 
  and 
  it 
  is 
  not 
  clear 
  whether 
  the 
  RJ 
  facilitators 
  
conducted 
  investigation 
  interviews 
  with 
  other 
  non-­‐participants. 
  
Third, 
  RJ 
  was 
  treated 
  as 
  a 
  full 
  response 
  to 
  the 
  Facebook 
  complaints. 
  We 
  know 
  that 
  some 
  female 
  
students 
  wanted 
  to 
  pursue 
  a 
  formal 
  complaint, 
  but 
  no 
  steps 
  were 
  taken. 
  In 
  particular, 
  it 
  is 
  not 
  
clear 
  to 
  us 
  what 
  became 
  of 
  Student 
  A’s 
  initial 
  efforts 
  to 
  lodge 
  a 
  complaint. 
  Her 
  attempt 
  to 
  make 
  a 
  
formal 
  complaint 
  under 
  the 
  Code 
  had 
  been 
  rejected. 
  Her 
  discussions 
  about 
  using 
  the 
  Policy 
  had 
  

 
  

73 
    
  

 broken 
  off. 
  Student 
  A 
  felt 
  that 
  an 
  informal 
  process 
  under 
  the 
  Policy, 
  which 
  seemed 
  to 
  be 
  the 
  
preference 
  of 
  the 
  HREHP, 
  was 
  unacceptable. 
  But 
  from 
  her 
  perspective, 
  she 
  was 
  the 
  initiator 
  of 
  the 
  
complaint 
  about 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group. 
  She 
  wanted 
  the 
  University 
  to 
  act. 
  In 
  her 
  view, 
  she 
  was 
  left 
  
dangling. 
   
  
Fourth, 
  the 
  incorporation 
  of 
  “successful 
  completion” 
  of 
  RJ 
  into 
  the 
  ASCC’s 
  determination 
  of 
  
whether 
  to 
  lift 
  student 
  suspensions 
  appears 
  inconsistent 
  with 
  what 
  we 
  understood 
  to 
  be 
  a 
  
voluntary 
  and 
  confidential 
  process. 
  For 
  the 
  identified 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  in 
  RJ, 
  successful 
  
completion 
  was 
  essential 
  to 
  avoid 
  the 
  possibility 
  of 
  academic 
  dismissal. 
   
  
The 
  ASCC 
  process 
  
On 
  December 
  22, 
  the 
  Clinic 
  Assistant 
  Dean 
  decided 
  to 
  suspend 
  the 
  13 
  identified 
  Facebook 
  posters 
  
indefinitely. 
  It 
  appears 
  that 
  this 
  decision 
  was 
  made 
  without 
  consultation 
  with 
  the 
  University 
  
administration. 
  When 
  the 
  suspended 
  students 
  were 
  informed 
  of 
  the 
  decision 
  on 
  January 
  5, 
  it 
  
appeared 
  that 
  they 
  were 
  being 
  asked 
  to 
  choose 
  to 
  participate 
  in 
  RJ 
  on 
  top 
  of 
  being 
  subject 
  to 
  an 
  
ASCC 
  process. 
  The 
  ASCC’s 
  confirmation 
  of 
  the 
  Clinic 
  Assistant 
  Dean’s 
  decision 
  the 
  next 
  day 
  
continued 
  the 
  suspensions 
  pending 
  completion 
  of 
  RJ 
  and 
  required 
  RJ 
  facilitators 
  to 
  report 
  regularly 
  
on 
  their 
  progress 
  to 
  the 
  ASCC. 
  We 
  do 
  not 
  know 
  whether 
  this 
  decision 
  to 
  involve 
  RJ 
  in 
  the 
  ASCC 
  
process 
  was 
  made 
  in 
  consultation 
  with 
  the 
  University 
  administration 
  or 
  even 
  with 
  the 
  RJ 
  
facilitators. 
  
In 
  our 
  view, 
  the 
  ASCC 
  process 
  raises 
  serious 
  questions 
  about 
  fairness. 
  These 
  include 
  questions 
  
about 
  whether 
  the 
  Clinic 
  Assistant 
  Dean 
  and 
  the 
  ASCC 
  had 
  the 
  authority 
  to 
  act 
  as 
  they 
  did, 
  
whether 
  requirements 
  such 
  as 
  notice 
  and 
  the 
  opportunity 
  to 
  be 
  heard 
  were 
  satisfied, 
  and 
  whether 
  
there 
  was 
  a 
  reasonable 
  perception 
  of 
  a 
  conflict 
  of 
  interest. 
  Although 
  it 
  is 
  not 
  a 
  disciplinary 
  body, 
  
the 
  ASCC 
  effectively 
  took 
  on 
  that 
  role 
  in 
  this 
  case, 
  and 
  was 
  widely 
  understood 
  to 
  be 
  the 
  body 
  that 
  
decided 
  on 
  sanctions 
  for 
  the 
  identified 
  Facebook 
  posters. 
   
  
Clearly, 
  the 
  ASCC 
  process, 
  having 
  started 
  independently, 
  could 
  have 
  continued 
  independently 
  of 
  
RJ. 
  The 
  ASCC’s 
  proper 
  focus 
  was 
  professionalism 
  and 
  the 
  concern 
  that 
  the 
  identified 
  Facebook 
  
posters 
  would 
  not 
  meet 
  professional 
  standards 
  was 
  the 
  only 
  basis 
  for 
  continuing 
  the 
  suspensions. 
  
This 
  was 
  not 
  punishment 
  for 
  what 
  the 
  students 
  had 
  already 
  done. 
  In 
  our 
  opinion, 
  the 
  suspensions 
  
were 
  only 
  justified 
  for 
  as 
  long 
  as 
  there 
  was 
  a 
  risk 
  that 
  the 
  students 
  would 
  continue 
  to 
  act 
  
unprofessionally. 
  Further, 
  there 
  was 
  no 
  need 
  to 
  entangle 
  the 
  ASCC 
  process 
  with 
  the 
  process 
  under 
  
the 
  Policy. 
   
  
The 
  adequacy 
  of 
  the 
  University’s 
  policies 
  
Based 
  on 
  our 
  review 
  of 
  comparable 
  institutions, 
  the 
  University’s 
  policies 
  relating 
  to 
  sexual 
  
harassment 
  issues 
  are 
  as 
  good 
  as, 
  if 
  not 
  better 
  than, 
  those 
  of 
  other 
  Canadian 
  universities. 
  Both 
  the 
  
Code 
  and 
  the 
  Policy 
  create 
  avenues 
  for 
  persons 
  other 
  than 
  the 
  complainants, 
  especially 
  
institutional 
  actors, 
  to 
  initiate 
  complaints 
  or 
  similar 
  reviews. 
  Some 
  other 
  institutions 
  do 
  not 
  have 
  
such 
  provisions. 
  The 
  approach 
  available 
  under 
  the 
  Code 
  and 
  Policy 
  is 
  invaluable 
  for 
  addressing 
  
systemic 
  complaints, 
  which 
  include 
  climate 
  and 
  culture 
  issues, 
  and 
  problems 
  rooted 
  in 
  policies 
  and 
  

 
  

74 
    
  

 processes. 
  We 
  do 
  not 
  see 
  a 
  need 
  for 
  the 
  University 
  to 
  redraft 
  its 
  policies. 
  To 
  the 
  extent 
  that 
  there 
  
are 
  unwritten 
  practices 
  that 
  affect 
  individual 
  rights 
  and 
  interests, 
  such 
  as 
  the 
  student-­‐in-­‐crisis 
  
process, 
  these 
  should 
  be 
  documented 
  and 
  approved 
  by 
  the 
  relevant 
  body. 
  The 
  University 
  should 
  
make 
  clear 
  how 
  codes 
  of 
  conduct 
  and 
  similar 
  policies 
  apply 
  to 
  social 
  media 
  activity. 
  Further, 
  the 
  
Student 
  Code 
  of 
  Conduct 
  should 
  deal 
  explicitly 
  with 
  responsibilities 
  arising 
  out 
  of 
  the 
  use 
  of 
  social 
  
media. 
  
Enhancing 
  processes 
  
We 
  believe 
  that 
  the 
  University 
  can 
  significantly 
  enhance 
  the 
  protections 
  afforded 
  in 
  its 
  central 
  
policies, 
  such 
  as 
  the 
  Code 
  and 
  Policy, 
  by 
  taking 
  steps 
  to 
  increase 
  access 
  to 
  information, 
  access 
  to 
  
assistance 
  in 
  raising 
  concerns, 
  and 
  awareness 
  among 
  decision-­‐makers 
  of 
  the 
  nature 
  and 
  
importance 
  of 
  systemic 
  complaints. 
   
  
Based 
  on 
  our 
  review, 
  dissemination 
  of 
  information 
  about 
  how 
  to 
  make 
  complaints 
  needs 
  to 
  be 
  
increased. 
  The 
  bodies 
  to 
  which 
  complaints 
  can 
  be 
  made 
  must 
  be 
  visible 
  and 
  public. 
  The 
  very 
  name 
  
“HREHP” 
  is 
  impenetrable. 
  Many 
  members 
  of 
  the 
  University 
  community, 
  including 
  senior 
  
administrators, 
  struggled 
  to 
  name 
  this 
  office 
  and 
  say 
  what 
  the 
  initials 
  stood 
  for. 
  A 
  name 
  change 
  is 
  
long 
  overdue. 
  The 
  office’s 
  basement 
  location 
  and 
  limited 
  space 
  sends 
  a 
  discouraging 
  message 
  
about 
  the 
  University’s 
  view 
  of 
  the 
  importance 
  of 
  the 
  issues 
  it 
  addresses. 
  We 
  understand 
  that 
  the 
  
office 
  of 
  the 
  Vice-­‐Provost, 
  student 
  affairs 
  is 
  being 
  restructured. 
  As 
  this 
  position 
  has 
  responsibility 
  
for 
  Code 
  complaints 
  as 
  well 
  as 
  complaints 
  against 
  students 
  under 
  the 
  Policy, 
  its 
  visibility 
  is 
  vital. 
  It 
  
is 
  equally 
  important 
  that 
  it 
  provide 
  clear 
  information 
  in 
  a 
  variety 
  of 
  formats, 
  including 
  ones 
  
accessible 
  to 
  students 
  with 
  disabilities, 
  about 
  how 
  to 
  make 
  complaints 
  and 
  to 
  whom 
  they 
  can 
  turn 
  
for 
  support. 
   
  
We 
  heard 
  from 
  a 
  number 
  of 
  groups 
  that 
  the 
  University 
  had 
  a 
  part-­‐time 
  ombudsperson 
  for 
  
students, 
  jointly 
  funded 
  by 
  the 
  Dalhousie 
  Student 
  Union, 
  but 
  that 
  this 
  position 
  has 
  been 
  
eliminated. 
  Many 
  Canadian 
  universities 
  have 
  an 
  independent 
  ombudsperson 
  funded 
  by 
  the 
  
institution. 
  Such 
  offices 
  may 
  serve 
  students, 
  staff 
  and/or 
  faculty. 
  Although 
  they 
  are 
  a 
  place 
  of 
  last 
  
resort, 
  when 
  no 
  policy 
  or 
  process 
  appears 
  to 
  fit 
  the 
  problem, 
  they 
  also 
  provide 
  a 
  visible 
  portal 
  for 
  
those 
  who 
  do 
  not 
  know 
  where 
  to 
  go 
  to 
  raise 
  a 
  concern. 
  Such 
  offices 
  can 
  be 
  very 
  effective 
  in 
  
identifying 
  systemic 
  issues 
  and 
  emerging 
  areas 
  of 
  concern, 
  and 
  can 
  report 
  on 
  these 
  matters 
  to 
  the 
  
University. 
  We 
  believe 
  an 
  ombudsperson 
  would 
  be 
  a 
  valuable 
  addition 
  to 
  Dalhousie’s 
  processes 
  
for 
  dealing 
  with 
  complaints 
  on 
  all 
  aspects 
  of 
  University 
  life, 
  and 
  in 
  particular, 
  on 
  sexism, 
  misogyny, 
  
racism, 
  and 
  homophobia. 
  
Our 
  review 
  demonstrates 
  that 
  opportunities 
  to 
  identify 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  as 
  evidence 
  of 
  a 
  
systemic 
  problem 
  within 
  Dentistry 
  were 
  missed. 
  There 
  was 
  information 
  about 
  issues 
  in 
  Dentistry 
  
that 
  pre-­‐dated 
  the 
  disclosure 
  of 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts, 
  and 
  there 
  had 
  been 
  responses 
  to 
  them. 
  
However, 
  each 
  incident 
  was 
  considered 
  in 
  isolation 
  and 
  no 
  links 
  were 
  made 
  between 
  them. 
  This 
  is 
  
not 
  surprising. 
  Our 
  institutions, 
  not 
  only 
  universities, 
  but 
  also 
  human 
  rights 
  bodies, 
  have 
  a 
  poor 
  
history 
  of 
  recognizing 
  and 
  responding 
  appropriately 
  to 
  systemic 
  problems. 
  Early 
  detection 
  systems 
  
are 
  needed 
  to 
  anticipate 
  potentially 
  systemic 
  complaints. 
  Bodies 
  that 
  receive 
  complaints 
  and 
  

 
  

75 
    
  

 concerns 
  relating 
  to 
  discrimination, 
  harassment, 
  culture, 
  and 
  climate, 
  especially 
  those 
  who 
  have 
  
the 
  ability 
  to 
  take 
  action 
  without 
  an 
  individual 
  complainant 
  under 
  the 
  Code 
  or 
  the 
  Policy, 
  need 
  to 
  
know 
  how 
  to 
  identify 
  systemic 
  issues. 
  This 
  can 
  include 
  training, 
  checklists 
  of 
  what 
  to 
  be 
  alert 
  for, 
  
and 
  guidelines 
  about 
  what 
  information 
  to 
  gather. 
  
Anonymous 
  complaints 
  
Many 
  spoke 
  to 
  us 
  about 
  the 
  need 
  to 
  be 
  able 
  to 
  make 
  anonymous 
  complaints, 
  especially 
  in 
  cases 
  of 
  
sexual 
  harassment 
  and 
  sexual 
  assault. 
  Others 
  argued 
  that 
  an 
  anonymous 
  complaint 
  is 
  unfair. 
  We 
  
think 
  part 
  of 
  the 
  problem 
  lies 
  in 
  misunderstandings 
  about 
  the 
  applicable 
  policies. 
  Anyone 
  can 
  seek 
  
the 
  advice 
  and 
  assistance 
  of 
  the 
  HREHP 
  without 
  providing 
  any 
  identifying 
  information. 
  An 
  informal 
  
complaint 
  process 
  under 
  the 
  Policy 
  does 
  not 
  entail 
  any 
  record 
  of 
  names, 
  but 
  the 
  resolution 
  
process 
  often 
  requires 
  that 
  the 
  complainant 
  and 
  respondent 
  know 
  the 
  identity 
  of 
  the 
  other. 
  A 
  
formal 
  complaint 
  process 
  requires 
  disclosure 
  of 
  the 
  identity 
  of 
  the 
  complainant. 
  However, 
  the 
  
complainant 
  might 
  be 
  someone 
  other 
  than 
  the 
  victim 
  of 
  the 
  alleged 
  misconduct. 
  Investigations 
  
under 
  the 
  Policy 
  will 
  involve 
  the 
  investigator 
  knowing 
  the 
  identities 
  of 
  witnesses, 
  but 
  this 
  
information 
  may 
  be 
  excluded 
  from 
  the 
  investigation 
  report. 
  
These 
  protections 
  are 
  comparable 
  to 
  those 
  in 
  the 
  discrimination 
  and 
  harassment 
  policies 
  at 
  other 
  
universities. 
  We 
  think 
  they 
  strike 
  a 
  fair 
  balance 
  between 
  the 
  interests 
  of 
  complainants 
  and 
  
respondents 
  in 
  the 
  context 
  of 
  complaints. 
  However, 
  anonymous 
  complaints 
  can 
  also 
  serve 
  a 
  
different 
  function. 
  The 
  biggest 
  concern 
  about 
  anonymous 
  complaints 
  is 
  that 
  there 
  is 
  no 
  way 
  to 
  
effectively 
  assess 
  the 
  merits 
  of 
  a 
  particular 
  complaint. 
  However, 
  a 
  group 
  of 
  anonymous 
  complaints 
  
all 
  reflecting 
  the 
  same 
  concern 
  provides 
  a 
  signal 
  that 
  there 
  may 
  be 
  a 
  problem 
  that 
  requires 
  some 
  
attention. 
  Soliciting 
  anonymous 
  complaints 
  for 
  this 
  purpose 
  could 
  be 
  very 
  useful. 
   
  
Whistleblowers 
  
Early 
  on, 
  the 
  student 
  who 
  disclosed 
  the 
  hate 
  fuck 
  poll 
  to 
  Student 
  A 
  was 
  called 
  “the 
  
Whistleblower.” 
  Later, 
  the 
  University 
  was 
  criticized 
  for 
  treating 
  him 
  more 
  harshly 
  than 
  the 
  
Facebook 
  posters 
  who 
  chose 
  to 
  participate 
  in 
  RJ. 
  This 
  raises 
  a 
  general 
  question 
  about 
  the 
  
treatment 
  of 
  those 
  who 
  come 
  forward 
  to 
  expose 
  misconduct. 
  In 
  fact, 
  Student 
  B 
  was 
  not 
  a 
  
whistleblower 
  in 
  the 
  sense 
  of 
  a 
  person 
  who 
  exposes 
  wrongdoing 
  to 
  the 
  relevant 
  authority. 
  He 
  
gave 
  information 
  to 
  Student 
  A, 
  who 
  then 
  disclosed 
  it 
  to 
  Dentistry 
  and 
  the 
  University. 
  However, 
  
both 
  of 
  these 
  students 
  believed 
  that 
  they 
  had 
  suffered 
  retaliatory 
  consequences 
  similar 
  to 
  those 
  
experienced 
  by 
  whistleblowers 
  in 
  other 
  situations, 
  including 
  from 
  their 
  peers. 
  
Whistleblower 
  policies 
  in 
  universities 
  tend 
  to 
  focus 
  on 
  misconduct 
  relating 
  to 
  research, 
  
employment 
  activity, 
  and 
  fraud. 
  Most 
  discrimination 
  and 
  harassment 
  policies 
  explicitly 
  prohibit 
  
retaliation 
  against 
  complainants 
  and 
  anyone 
  assisting 
  in 
  or 
  providing 
  evidence 
  about 
  a 
  complaint. 
  
The 
  Policy 
  contains 
  this 
  protection, 
  but 
  the 
  Code 
  does 
  not. 
  It 
  is 
  not 
  clear 
  whether 
  Student 
  A 
  and 
  
Student 
  B 
  were 
  advised 
  of 
  this 
  protection 
  or 
  whether 
  they 
  informed 
  the 
  HREHP 
  about 
  the 
  way 
  
they 
  were 
  being 
  treated. 
  It 
  does 
  not 
  appear 
  that 
  they 
  received 
  any 
  support 
  from 
  the 
  HREHP 
  in 
  
taking 
  steps 
  to 
  address 
  the 
  harm 
  they 
  were 
  experiencing. 
  

 
  

76 
    
  

 We 
  believe 
  that 
  the 
  protections 
  against 
  retaliation 
  in 
  the 
  Policy 
  are 
  appropriate 
  and 
  that 
  there 
  is 
  
no 
  need 
  for 
  a 
  separate 
  whistleblower 
  policy 
  to 
  address 
  retaliation 
  in 
  the 
  context 
  of 
  sexual 
  
misconduct. 
  However, 
  we 
  are 
  recommending 
  that 
  the 
  University 
  strengthen 
  the 
  retaliation 
  
protections 
  under 
  the 
  Sexual 
  Harassment 
  Policy, 
  make 
  them 
  easier 
  to 
  invoke, 
  and 
  publicize 
  them 
  
more 
  widely. 
  We 
  are 
  also 
  recommending 
  that 
  protection 
  from 
  retaliation 
  be 
  made 
  available 
  in 
  the 
  
case 
  of 
  complaints 
  of 
  sexual 
  misconduct 
  accepted 
  under 
  the 
  Code. 
   
  
Restorative 
  justice 
  
The 
  Task 
  Force 
  recognizes 
  that 
  RJ 
  is 
  an 
  important 
  option, 
  particularly 
  for 
  systemic 
  issues. 
  In 
  many 
  
respects, 
  it 
  achieved 
  remarkable 
  success 
  in 
  this 
  instance. 
  Some 
  of 
  that 
  success 
  was 
  due 
  to 
  the 
  fact 
  
that 
  it 
  involved 
  a 
  peer 
  group 
  with 
  close 
  bonds 
  and 
  shared 
  interests. 
  There 
  were 
  incentives 
  to 
  
participate, 
  enough 
  time 
  was 
  allocated, 
  and 
  there 
  were 
  resources 
  devoted 
  to 
  it. 
  The 
  outcome 
  is 
  a 
  
tribute 
  not 
  only 
  to 
  the 
  students 
  who 
  went 
  through 
  that 
  process, 
  but 
  also 
  to 
  the 
  RJ 
  advisor 
  and 
  the 
  
facilitators. 
  
In 
  our 
  view, 
  the 
  University 
  should 
  retain 
  RJ 
  as 
  tool 
  to 
  be 
  used 
  in 
  appropriate 
  circumstances, 
  
particularly 
  relating 
  to 
  systemic 
  issues. 
  However, 
  the 
  experience 
  in 
  this 
  case 
  suggests 
  that 
  in 
  the 
  
future, 
  RJ 
  should 
  not 
  be 
  used 
  in 
  place 
  of 
  investigations. 
  Nor 
  should 
  students 
  implicated 
  in 
  the 
  
events 
  that 
  give 
  rise 
  to 
  RJ 
  who 
  do 
  not 
  wish 
  to 
  participate 
  in 
  RJ 
  be 
  excluded 
  from 
  other 
  remedies 
  
and 
  support. 
  
Educational 
  programs 
  
Education 
  and 
  training 
  are 
  at 
  the 
  core 
  of 
  a 
  university’s 
  mandate. 
  Thus, 
  we 
  believe 
  that 
  they 
  are 
  
essential 
  elements 
  in 
  addressing 
  issues 
  of 
  misogyny, 
  sexism, 
  racism, 
  and 
  homophobia. 
  Some 
  of 
  
this 
  is 
  already 
  being 
  done 
  through 
  programs 
  developed 
  and 
  presented 
  by 
  HREHP. 
  More 
  can 
  be 
  
done 
  both 
  centrally 
  and 
  within 
  faculties. 
  The 
  effectiveness 
  of 
  such 
  initiatives 
  varies 
  with 
  the 
  
content 
  of 
  the 
  program, 
  the 
  skills 
  of 
  the 
  facilitators, 
  and 
  the 
  receptivity 
  of 
  the 
  audience. 
  That 
  said, 
  
we 
  caution 
  against 
  the 
  assumption 
  that 
  any 
  amount 
  of 
  training, 
  whether 
  mandatory 
  or 
  voluntary, 
  
can 
  accomplish 
  cultural 
  change 
  or 
  acceptance 
  of 
  collective 
  responsibility 
  for 
  sexism, 
  racism, 
  
homophobia, 
  and 
  similar 
  manifestations 
  of 
  inequality. 
  
Cultural 
  change 
  and 
  acceptance 
  of 
  collective 
  responsibility 
  happen 
  when 
  individuals 
  recognize, 
  
whether 
  individually 
  or 
  collectively, 
  that 
  change 
  is 
  imperative. 
  It 
  must 
  be 
  seen 
  as 
  the 
  right 
  thing 
  to 
  
do. 
  Leadership 
  within 
  an 
  institution 
  motivates 
  and 
  nurtures 
  change, 
  and 
  the 
  credibility 
  of 
  
leadership 
  will 
  inspire 
  others 
  to 
  follow. 
  The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  will 
  change 
  when 
  both 
  its 
  leaders 
  
and 
  its 
  faculty 
  members 
  believe 
  that 
  they 
  should 
  change 
  and 
  are 
  prepared 
  to 
  take 
  steps 
  to 
  do 
  
that. 
  Education, 
  research, 
  and 
  reflection 
  can 
  help, 
  but 
  they 
  are 
  not 
  a 
  substitute. 
   
  
Recommendations 
  
18.

 
  

The 
  University 
  should 
  ensure 
  that 
  all 
  of 
  its 
  policies 
  are 
  in 
  written 
  format 
  and 
  widely 
  
accessible. 
   
  

77 
    
  

 19.

The 
  University 
  should 
  make 
  clear 
  how 
  codes 
  of 
  conduct 
  and 
  similar 
  policies 
  apply 
  to 
  social 
  
media 
  activity, 
  whether 
  by 
  revising 
  policies 
  or 
  otherwise. 
  

20.

The 
  University 
  should 
  increase 
  its 
  dissemination 
  of 
  information 
  about 
  how 
  to 
  raise 
  concerns 
  
and 
  lodge 
  complaints 
  about 
  sexual 
  harassment 
  and 
  sexual 
  misconduct. 
   
  

21.

The 
  University 
  should 
  publicize 
  more 
  information 
  about 
  the 
  institutions 
  and 
  processes 
  that 
  
can 
  address 
  issues 
  of 
  inequality, 
  including 
  harassment 
  and 
  misconduct. 
  

22.

The 
  HREHP 
  should 
  be 
  located 
  more 
  visibly 
  on 
  campus 
  with 
  more 
  adequate 
  facilities 
  and 
  
resources. 
  Consideration 
  should 
  be 
  given 
  to 
  renaming 
  the 
  office. 
  

23.

The 
  University 
  should 
  publicize 
  the 
  role 
  and 
  responsibilities 
  of 
  the 
  Office 
  of 
  Vice-­‐Provost, 
  
Student 
  Affairs 
  in 
  dealing 
  with 
  student 
  complaints. 
  Particular 
  attention 
  should 
  focus 
  on 
  
informing 
  students 
  how 
  they 
  can 
  raise 
  concerns 
  and 
  make 
  complaints. 
   
  

24.

The 
  University 
  should 
  consider 
  establishing 
  a 
  fully 
  funded 
  ombudsperson 
  office 
  comparable 
  
to 
  those 
  at 
  other 
  Canadian 
  universities. 
  

25.

The 
  University 
  should 
  develop 
  early 
  detection 
  mechanisms 
  to 
  identify 
  issues 
  of 
  
discrimination 
  or 
  harassment 
  that 
  may 
  be 
  systemic 
  in 
  nature, 
  and 
  issue 
  guidelines 
  that 
  will 
  
assist 
  those 
  with 
  the 
  power 
  to 
  initiate 
  complaints 
  on 
  behalf 
  of 
  the 
  University 
  to 
  identify 
  
when 
  and 
  how 
  to 
  do 
  so. 
   
  

26.

University 
  leaders 
  and 
  decision-­‐makers 
  should 
  draw 
  on 
  those 
  with 
  legal 
  and 
  social 
  science 
  
expertise 
  in 
  systemic 
  discrimination 
  when 
  responding 
  to 
  issues 
  that 
  may 
  have 
  systemic 
  
dimensions. 
   
  

27.

The 
  University 
  should 
  make 
  it 
  more 
  widely 
  known 
  that 
  complaints 
  of 
  sexual 
  harassment 
  and 
  
sexual 
  misconduct 
  can 
  be 
  addressed 
  in 
  ways 
  that 
  protect 
  the 
  complainant’s 
  identity. 
   
  

28.

The 
  University 
  should 
  strengthen 
  the 
  retaliation 
  protections 
  under 
  the 
  Sexual 
  Harassment 
  
Policy, 
  make 
  them 
  easier 
  to 
  invoke, 
  and 
  publicize 
  them 
  more 
  widely. 
  The 
  University 
  should 
  
extend 
  retaliation 
  protections 
  to 
  complaints 
  about 
  sexual 
  misconduct 
  made 
  under 
  the 
  Code 
  
of 
  Student 
  Conduct. 
   
  

29.

The 
  University 
  should 
  continue 
  to 
  include 
  RJ 
  specifically 
  among 
  the 
  mechanisms 
  it 
  may 
  
adopt 
  in 
  dealing 
  with 
  issues 
  of 
  inequality, 
  such 
  as 
  misogyny, 
  sexism, 
  and 
  homophobia, 
  but 
  
also 
  continue 
  to 
  assess 
  the 
  circumstances 
  in 
  which 
  it 
  is 
  appropriate. 
  The 
  University 
  should 
  
ensure 
  that 
  when 
  it 
  adopts 
  RJ, 
  affected 
  students 
  who 
  choose 
  not 
  to 
  participate 
  in 
  RJ 
  are 
  
provided 
  with 
  alternative 
  courses 
  of 
  redress. 
  

30.

The 
  University 
  should 
  maintain 
  and 
  develop 
  a 
  variety 
  of 
  educational 
  programs 
  on 
  issues 
  of 
  
inequality 
  and 
  widely 
  disseminate 
  them 
  across 
  the 
  University. 
  However, 
  such 
  programs 
  

 
  

78 
    
  

 should 
  not 
  be 
  seen 
  as 
  a 
  substitute 
  for 
  leadership 
  and 
  institutional 
  commitment 
  to 
  
confronting 
  inequality. 
  

III. 
  The 
  wider 
  context: 
  the 
  University 
  community 
  and 
  society 
  generally 
  
Our 
  terms 
  of 
  reference 
  focus 
  primarily 
  on 
  the 
  Facebook 
  episode 
  and 
  Dentistry, 
  but 
  we 
  were 
  also 
  
asked 
  to 
  review 
  the 
  University’s 
  practices 
  with 
  respect 
  to 
  “tolerance 
  for 
  misogynistic, 
  sexist, 
  and 
  
homophobic 
  conduct” 
  and 
  “sanctions 
  for 
  such 
  conduct.” 
  Just 
  as 
  Dentistry 
  functions 
  within 
  a 
  wider 
  
university, 
  the 
  University 
  functions 
  within 
  a 
  wider 
  society 
  that 
  also 
  bears 
  some 
  scrutiny 
  if 
  these 
  
events 
  are 
  to 
  be 
  assessed 
  properly. 
  
Public 
  scrutiny 
  
The 
  disclosure 
  of 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  prompted 
  a 
  searching 
  public 
  interrogation 
  of 
  the 
  University’s 
  
ability 
  to 
  deliver 
  a 
  fair 
  resolution 
  to 
  the 
  crisis. 
  Some 
  referred 
  to 
  the 
  University’s 
  reputation 
  for 
  
dealing 
  with 
  equity 
  issues 
  in 
  the 
  past. 
  Correctly 
  or 
  incorrectly, 
  the 
  University 
  was 
  thought 
  to 
  have 
  
been 
  slow 
  to 
  deal 
  with 
  issues 
  of 
  sexism, 
  homophobia, 
  racism, 
  and 
  other 
  forms 
  of 
  discrimination. 
  
The 
  phrase 
  “sweeping 
  it 
  under 
  the 
  rug” 
  was 
  heard 
  repeatedly. 
  This 
  widespread 
  perception 
  
generated 
  suspicion 
  and 
  distrust, 
  and 
  it 
  heightened 
  criticism 
  of 
  every 
  step 
  the 
  University 
  
administrators 
  took. 
  Building 
  the 
  University’s 
  reputation 
  as 
  sensitive 
  and 
  responsive 
  to 
  equity 
  
issues 
  can 
  make 
  a 
  difference 
  to 
  the 
  way 
  observers 
  will 
  perceive 
  its 
  actions 
  in 
  the 
  future. 
   
  
Most 
  of 
  the 
  people 
  we 
  interviewed 
  deplored 
  the 
  media 
  spotlight 
  on 
  the 
  Facebook 
  group 
  and 
  
Dentistry. 
  They 
  complained 
  that 
  the 
  glare 
  of 
  publicity 
  made 
  it 
  much 
  harder 
  to 
  explore 
  options 
  and 
  
to 
  take 
  remedial 
  steps. 
  The 
  media 
  attention 
  was 
  certainly 
  painful 
  for 
  those 
  involved, 
  but 
  it 
  is 
  also 
  
important 
  to 
  recognize 
  that 
  someone 
  chose 
  to 
  share 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  with 
  the 
  CBC 
  for 
  a 
  
reason. 
  That 
  person 
  was 
  concerned 
  that 
  Dentistry 
  and 
  the 
  University 
  were 
  not 
  dealing 
  with 
  the 
  
matter 
  promptly 
  and 
  fairly. 
  Clearly, 
  many 
  people 
  were 
  deeply 
  hurt 
  by 
  the 
  reports, 
  but 
  reporters 
  
covered 
  this 
  story 
  because 
  it 
  was 
  a 
  matter 
  of 
  public 
  interest. 
  Sexual 
  harassment 
  and 
  sexual 
  abuse 
  
have 
  increasingly 
  put 
  organizations 
  under 
  the 
  media 
  microscope. 
  Universities 
  are 
  not, 
  and 
  should 
  
not 
  be 
  exempt 
  from 
  public 
  attention. 
   
  
Listening 
  to 
  advice, 
  encouraging 
  debate, 
  dealing 
  with 
  disputes 
  
The 
  Dalhousie 
  Student 
  Union, 
  which 
  represents 
  18,500 
  students, 
  is 
  the 
  organization 
  that 
  
advocates 
  collectively 
  for 
  student 
  rights. 
  Its 
  executive 
  members 
  advised 
  us 
  that 
  they 
  had 
  been 
  
informed 
  of 
  problems 
  within 
  Dentistry 
  several 
  months 
  before 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  came 
  to 
  light. 
  
They 
  expressed 
  frustration 
  that 
  their 
  efforts 
  to 
  advise 
  the 
  University 
  about 
  this 
  had 
  been 
  
unsuccessful. 
  Through 
  miscommunication, 
  confusion, 
  or 
  misinterpretation, 
  the 
  message 
  did 
  not 
  
get 
  through 
  to 
  the 
  University 
  administrators. 
  This 
  suggests 
  that 
  better 
  linkages 
  and 
  consultations 
  
between 
  the 
  University 
  and 
  the 
  Dalhousie 
  Student 
  Union 
  are 
  needed. 
   
  
Faculty 
  members 
  outside 
  Dentistry 
  expressed 
  different 
  views 
  about 
  how 
  the 
  University 
  should 
  
respond 
  to 
  the 
  disclosure 
  of 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts. 
  The 
  administration 
  took 
  advice 
  and 
  assistance 
  
from 
  some 
  and 
  not 
  from 
  others, 
  and 
  it 
  was 
  entitled 
  to 
  do 
  so 
  in 
  exercising 
  its 
  responsibility. 
  
However, 
  those 
  who 
  were 
  critical 
  of 
  the 
  University’s 
  decisions 
  were 
  voicing 
  legitimate 
  

 
  

79 
    
  

 perspectives 
  and 
  deserved 
  to 
  be 
  treated 
  with 
  respect, 
  particularly 
  in 
  an 
  institution 
  committed 
  to 
  
free 
  and 
  full 
  inquiry. 
  Universities 
  thrive 
  on 
  the 
  creative 
  participation 
  of 
  their 
  faculty 
  members 
  in 
  
University 
  life. 
  Anything 
  that 
  discourages 
  them 
  from 
  participation 
  is 
  not 
  good 
  for 
  the 
  University. 
  
The 
  fact 
  that 
  these 
  individuals 
  felt 
  ostracized 
  and 
  perceived 
  themselves 
  labeled 
  as 
  trouble-­‐makers 
  
must 
  be 
  addressed. 
  The 
  University 
  needs 
  to 
  repair 
  those 
  relationships 
  and 
  re-­‐establish 
  respect 
  for 
  
full 
  and 
  vigorous 
  debate 
  on 
  equity 
  issues. 
  Doing 
  so 
  will 
  stand 
  the 
  University 
  in 
  good 
  stead 
  as 
  these 
  
controversies 
  emerge 
  in 
  the 
  future. 
   
  
The 
  debate 
  about 
  how 
  the 
  University 
  should 
  respond 
  to 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  also 
  sparked 
  a 
  wider 
  
controversy 
  over 
  the 
  appropriate 
  use 
  of 
  RJ 
  within 
  the 
  criminal 
  justice 
  system 
  generally. 
  Fifteen 
  
years 
  earlier, 
  Nova 
  Scotia 
  had 
  moved 
  to 
  expand 
  its 
  use 
  of 
  RJ. 
  Women’s 
  organizations 
  objected 
  that 
  
this 
  was 
  dangerous 
  in 
  cases 
  of 
  sexual 
  assault 
  and 
  intimate 
  partner 
  violence 
  and 
  that 
  it 
  re-­‐
victimized 
  women. 
  They 
  pointed 
  to 
  a 
  misplaced 
  focus 
  on 
  individualized 
  rather 
  than 
  community 
  
transformation 
  and 
  rejected 
  the 
  shift 
  to 
  the 
  privatization 
  of 
  crimes 
  against 
  women. 
  They 
  
convinced 
  the 
  province 
  to 
  place 
  a 
  Nova 
  Scotia-­‐wide 
  moratorium 
  on 
  RJ 
  for 
  such 
  cases. 
  When 
  RJ 
  
appeared 
  to 
  have 
  been 
  resurrected 
  in 
  the 
  Facebook 
  controversy, 
  many 
  feared 
  that 
  this 
  was 
  the 
  
thin 
  edge 
  of 
  the 
  wedge, 
  and 
  that 
  it 
  would 
  lead 
  to 
  reintroducing 
  RJ 
  into 
  criminal 
  cases 
  involving 
  
sexual 
  violence. 
  These 
  are 
  legitimate 
  concerns. 
  Regardless 
  of 
  RJ’s 
  success 
  in 
  the 
  specific 
  instance 
  
of 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts, 
  it 
  is 
  no 
  justification 
  for 
  lifting 
  the 
  wider 
  moratorium. 
  
Bad 
  apples 
  and 
  blame 
  
When 
  events 
  like 
  the 
  Facebook 
  posts 
  reach 
  a 
  crisis 
  point, 
  there 
  is 
  a 
  tendency 
  to 
  search 
  for 
  a 
  culprit 
  
or 
  dispose 
  of 
  a 
  matter 
  by 
  calling 
  it 
  an 
  anomaly. 
  This 
  is 
  sometimes 
  called 
  the 
  “bad 
  apple 
  theory.” 
  It 
  
was 
  evident 
  here 
  at 
  almost 
  every 
  level. 
  The 
  Facebook 
  group 
  members, 
  the 
  student 
  who 
  made 
  the 
  
first 
  complaint, 
  and 
  the 
  student 
  who 
  disclosed 
  the 
  Facebook 
  poll 
  to 
  her, 
  were 
  all 
  depicted 
  as 
  bad 
  
apples. 
  The 
  whole 
  fourth-­‐year 
  was 
  a 
  bad 
  apple 
  class. 
  The 
  faculty 
  members 
  whose 
  alleged 
  acts 
  of 
  
discrimination 
  attracted 
  attention 
  were 
  bad 
  apples. 
  Bad 
  apple 
  managers 
  mismanaged 
  the 
  staff 
  in 
  
the 
  dental 
  school. 
  Dentistry 
  was 
  a 
  bad 
  apple 
  faculty. 
  
There 
  were 
  other 
  culprits. 
  The 
  faculty 
  members 
  outside 
  Dentistry 
  who 
  attempted 
  to 
  intervene 
  
were 
  troublemakers. 
  Social 
  media 
  was 
  to 
  blame. 
  The 
  whole 
  of 
  the 
  media 
  was 
  to 
  blame. 
  The 
  
President 
  was 
  to 
  blame. 
  This 
  is 
  never 
  correct 
  in 
  the 
  context 
  of 
  systemic 
  problems 
  that 
  run 
  so 
  
deeply 
  within 
  large 
  institutions. 
  It 
  is 
  also 
  a 
  strategy 
  of 
  minimal 
  effectiveness. 
  It 
  is 
  an 
  illusion 
  to 
  
think 
  that 
  ridding 
  the 
  University 
  of 
  bad 
  apples 
  will 
  somehow 
  leave 
  us 
  miraculously 
  cleansed 
  of 
  
inequity. 
  
Interdisciplinary 
  approach 
  instead 
  of 
  more 
  of 
  the 
  same 
  
The 
  Facebook 
  incident 
  took 
  place 
  within 
  a 
  wider 
  culture 
  that 
  celebrates 
  sexualized 
  violence, 
  
promotes 
  aggressive 
  masculinity, 
  and 
  objectifies 
  women. 
  The 
  phrase 
  “rape 
  culture,” 
  first 
  coined 
  in 
  
the 
  United 
  States 
  in 
  the 
  1970s, 
  has 
  taken 
  on 
  renewed 
  urgency 
  in 
  the 
  21st 
  century 
  as 
  the 
  
phenomenon 
  grows 
  in 
  strength 
  and 
  prevalence. 
  

 
  

80 
    
  

 Researchers 
  have 
  concluded 
  that 
  universities 
  offer 
  a 
  prime 
  hunting 
  ground 
  for 
  assailants, 
  and 
  
governments 
  are 
  urging 
  the 
  institutions 
  to 
  intervene. 
  Others 
  point 
  out 
  that 
  the 
  anti-­‐rape 
  
education 
  and 
  advocacy 
  methods 
  developed 
  in 
  the 
  1980s 
  and 
  1990s, 
  largely 
  unchanged 
  since, 
  
appear 
  to 
  have 
  had 
  little 
  impact. 
  Some 
  of 
  the 
  people 
  we 
  met 
  with 
  urged 
  us 
  to 
  be 
  cautious 
  about 
  
recommending 
  “more 
  of 
  the 
  same,” 
  and 
  not 
  to 
  “carry 
  on 
  as 
  if 
  we 
  know 
  what 
  we 
  are 
  doing.” 
  Some 
  
offered 
  innovative 
  suggestions 
  about 
  starting 
  from 
  the 
  ground 
  up, 
  using 
  an 
  inter-­‐disciplinary 
  
approach 
  that 
  might 
  incorporate 
  new 
  knowledge 
  from 
  anthropology, 
  social 
  geography, 
  
environmental 
  design, 
  engineering, 
  organizational 
  change 
  theory, 
  complexity 
  theory, 
  and 
  
innovative 
  research 
  methods 
  to 
  develop 
  radically 
  different 
  and 
  more 
  effective 
  approaches. 
   
  
The 
  Task 
  Force 
  also 
  heard 
  from 
  Dalhousie 
  faculty 
  members 
  and 
  administrators 
  external 
  to 
  
Dentistry 
  who 
  shared 
  their 
  observations 
  and 
  expertise 
  on 
  university 
  disciplinary 
  processes, 
  the 
  
law, 
  leadership 
  and 
  managerial 
  practices, 
  feminist 
  perspectives, 
  anti-­‐racism, 
  and 
  LGBTQ 
  issues. 
  
We 
  had 
  the 
  benefit 
  of 
  the 
  campus-­‐wide 
  consultation 
  reflected 
  in 
  the 
  Belong 
  report. 
   
  Many 
  of 
  its 
  
recommendations 
  are 
  relevant 
  to 
  our 
  report. 
  We 
  have 
  refrained 
  from 
  repeating 
  them 
  here. 
   
  We 
  
were 
  also 
  fortunate 
  to 
  have 
  contributions 
  from 
  faculty 
  and 
  administrators 
  from 
  other 
  universities, 
  
policy 
  analysts, 
  and 
  representatives 
  from 
  community 
  organizations 
  external 
  to 
  Dalhousie. 
  We 
  
were 
  left 
  with 
  the 
  impression 
  of 
  an 
  enormous 
  pool 
  of 
  talent 
  and 
  capacity, 
  a 
  surfeit 
  of 
  goodwill, 
  
and 
  a 
  collective 
  desire 
  to 
  improve 
  the 
  equity 
  performance 
  in 
  our 
  universities. 
  
Recommendations: 
   
  
31.

The 
  University 
  should 
  seek 
  to 
  enhance 
  its 
  reputation 
  for 
  responding 
  to 
  equity 
  issues 
  by 
  
ensuring 
  that 
  complaints 
  receive 
  fair 
  and 
  timely 
  responses 
  and 
  establishing, 
  over 
  time, 
  a 
  
visible 
  track 
  record 
  of 
  effective 
  intervention. 
  

32.

The 
  University 
  should 
  recognize 
  that 
  expertise 
  in 
  equity 
  issues 
  is 
  a 
  necessary 
  skill 
  for 
  faculty, 
  
central 
  administrators, 
  and 
  institutional 
  decision-­‐makers 
  at 
  all 
  levels, 
  up 
  to 
  and 
  including 
  the 
  
board 
  of 
  governors. 
  The 
  University 
  should 
  draw 
  on 
  the 
  existing 
  internal 
  expertise 
  of 
  
organizations 
  such 
  as 
  South 
  House, 
  Gender 
  and 
  Women’s 
  Studies 
  and 
  Black 
  Canadian 
  
Studies, 
  among 
  others, 
  in 
  designing 
  appropriate 
  training 
  and 
  supports. 
  Additional 
  resources 
  
should 
  be 
  provided 
  to 
  increase 
  the 
  capacity 
  of 
  all 
  of 
  these 
  organizations. 
  

33.

The 
  University 
  should 
  seek 
  ways 
  to 
  move 
  toward 
  greater 
  inclusion 
  of 
  female, 
  LGBTQ, 
  
racialized, 
  disabled, 
  and 
  diverse 
  ethnic 
  and 
  religious 
  communities 
  within 
  its 
  student, 
  faculty, 
  
and 
  administrative 
  populations. 
   
  

34.

The 
  University 
  should 
  expand 
  its 
  linkages 
  with 
  community 
  organizations 
  such 
  as 
  front-­‐line 
  
anti-­‐violence 
  services 
  and 
  others 
  with 
  expertise 
  in 
  equity. 
  

35.

The 
  University 
  should 
  ensure 
  that 
  faculty 
  members, 
  staff, 
  and 
  students 
  who 
  raise 
  concerns 
  
about 
  equity 
  are 
  not 
  at 
  risk 
  of 
  retaliation 
  for 
  doing 
  so. 
  

 
  

81 
    
  

 36.

The 
  University 
  should 
  continue 
  research 
  into 
  the 
  use 
  of 
  RJ, 
  exploring 
  whether 
  there 
  are 
  
ways 
  to 
  improve 
  its 
  process 
  and 
  content 
  in 
  disputes 
  within 
  areas 
  not 
  included 
  in 
  the 
  
province-­‐wide 
  moratorium. 
  

37.

The 
  University 
  should 
  build 
  on 
  its 
  strong 
  reputation 
  for 
  research 
  by 
  undertaking 
  studies, 
  
including 
  new 
  forms 
  of 
  interdisciplinary 
  analysis, 
  into 
  the 
  nature 
  of 
  rape 
  culture 
  and 
  ways 
  to 
  
reduce 
  or 
  eliminate 
  sexual 
  violence 
  in 
  society 
  generally. 
  The 
  University 
  should 
  draw 
  upon 
  
the 
  expertise 
  of 
  its 
  faculty 
  members, 
  staff, 
  and 
  students 
  to 
  develop 
  world-­‐class 
  research, 
  
teaching, 
  and 
  activism 
  to 
  dismantle 
  inequality. 
  

38.

The 
  University 
  should 
  expand 
  on 
  its 
  strong 
  reputation 
  for 
  pedagogy 
  by 
  exploring 
  new 
  
educational 
  and 
  communication 
  techniques 
  to 
  improve 
  teaching 
  in 
  the 
  field 
  of 
  anti-­‐
discrimination, 
  exploring 
  why 
  our 
  current 
  forms 
  of 
  training 
  appear 
  to 
  be 
  less 
  successful 
  than 
  
we 
  had 
  hoped, 
  and 
  experimenting 
  with 
  new 
  methods. 
  

39.

The 
  University 
  should 
  continue 
  with 
  its 
  process 
  to 
  implement 
  the 
  recommendations 
  in 
  the 
  
2015 
  Dalhousie 
  Report, 
  Belong: 
  Supporting 
  an 
  Inclusive 
  and 
  Diverse 
  University. 
  

 
  

82 
    
  

 Chapter 
  8. 
  Summary 
  of 
  Recommendations 
  
I. 
  Recommendations 
  related 
  to 
  the 
  dental 
  school 
  culture 
  
1.
The 
  professors 
  and 
  administrators 
  within 
  the 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  collectively 
  agree 
  
on 
  the 
  necessity 
  for 
  fundamental 
  change, 
  including 
  a 
  commitment 
  to 
  implementing 
  the 
  
recommendations 
  in 
  this 
  Report. 
  This 
  should 
  entail 
  developing 
  an 
  action 
  plan 
  with 
  defined 
  
goals, 
  timelines, 
  and 
  identification 
  of 
  people 
  to 
  be 
  responsible 
  for 
  implementation. 
   
  
2.

The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  improve 
  the 
  complaint 
  system 
  so 
  that 
  faculty 
  members, 
  
students, 
  and 
  staff 
  understand 
  clearly 
  when, 
  where, 
  and 
  how 
  they 
  may 
  lodge 
  a 
  complaint. 
  
The 
  complaint 
  system 
  should 
  ensure 
  that 
  complaints 
  are 
  processed 
  promptly, 
  fairly, 
  and 
  
transparently, 
  and 
  that 
  complainants 
  are 
  made 
  aware 
  of 
  the 
  outcome. 
   
  

3.

Notwithstanding 
  the 
  implementation 
  of 
  an 
  improved 
  complaints 
  system, 
  the 
  Faculty 
  of 
  
Dentistry 
  should 
  use 
  systemic, 
  non-­‐punitive 
  ways 
  to 
  identify 
  and 
  obtain 
  information 
  about 
  
potential 
  or 
  actual 
  problems. 
  These 
  may 
  include 
  “chilly 
  climate” 
  reports, 
  anonymous 
  
workplace 
  surveys, 
  and 
  spot 
  audits. 
  

4.

The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  implement 
  measures 
  to 
  improve 
  working 
  conditions 
  for 
  
staff, 
  specifically 
  those 
  related 
  to 
  unacceptable 
  treatment 
  by 
  managers 
  and 
  students. 
   
  

5.

The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  change 
  the 
  patient 
  distribution/clinical 
  credit 
  system 
  to 
  
ensure 
  fairness 
  and 
  reduce 
  excessive 
  competition 
  and 
  patient 
  hoarding. 
  

6.

The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  monitor 
  social 
  and 
  other 
  extra-­‐curricular 
  events 
  at 
  the 
  
dental 
  school 
  to 
  prevent 
  excessive 
  alcohol 
  consumption 
  and 
  facilitation 
  of 
  sexist, 
  
heterosexist, 
  misogynistic, 
  or 
  racist 
  behaviour. 
  Events 
  that 
  do 
  not 
  contribute 
  to 
  such 
  
behaviour 
  should 
  be 
  reinstated. 
  

7.

The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  improve 
  the 
  integration 
  of 
  the 
  School 
  of 
  Dental 
  Hygiene 
  
within 
  the 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry. 
  One 
  possible 
  step 
  might 
  be 
  to 
  appoint 
  an 
  assistant 
  dean 
  
from 
  among 
  the 
  senior 
  administrators 
  for 
  the 
  School 
  of 
  Dental 
  Hygiene. 
   
  

8.

The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  eliminate 
  any 
  inequitable 
  treatment 
  of 
  Qualifying 
  Program 
  
students. 
  They 
  should 
  be 
  fully 
  integrated 
  into 
  their 
  classes, 
  and 
  recognized 
  for 
  the 
  expertise 
  
they 
  bring 
  to 
  the 
  school. 
  The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  also 
  seek 
  to 
  ensure 
  that 
  students 
  
from 
  the 
  United 
  States 
  do 
  not 
  receive 
  preferential 
  treatment. 
  

9.

The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  seek 
  ways 
  to 
  celebrate 
  the 
  role 
  that 
  female, 
  racialized, 
  and 
  
LGBTQ 
  dentists 
  have 
  played 
  in 
  the 
  dental 
  profession, 
  recognizing 
  both 
  their 
  struggles 
  and 
  
their 
  successes. 
  

 
  

83 
    
  

 10.

The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  collect 
  data 
  to 
  provide 
  information 
  on 
  the 
  diversity 
  of 
  the 
  
student 
  body 
  by 
  inviting 
  students 
  who 
  wish 
  to 
  do 
  so 
  to 
  self-­‐identify, 
  confidentially, 
  with 
  
regard 
  to 
  sex, 
  sexual 
  orientation, 
  socio-­‐economic 
  background, 
  racialization, 
  indigeneity, 
  and 
  
disability 
  status. 
  Aggregate 
  data 
  should 
  be 
  reported 
  to 
  the 
  University’s 
  Senate 
  and 
  released 
  
to 
  the 
  public 
  annually. 
  The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  also 
  consider 
  introducing 
  a 
  
designated 
  recruitment 
  program 
  for 
  Indigenous 
  and 
  Black 
  communities. 
   
  

11.

The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  survey 
  faculty 
  members 
  and 
  staff 
  to 
  build 
  longitudinal 
  data 
  
on 
  the 
  same 
  axes 
  of 
  diversity 
  as 
  set 
  out 
  in 
  Recommendation 
  10. 
   
  

12.

The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  create 
  an 
  internal 
  council 
  or 
  committee 
  on 
  inclusion 
  and 
  
diversity. 
   
  

13.

The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  conduct 
  an 
  independent 
  external 
  review 
  to 
  determine 
  
whether 
  RJ 
  sessions, 
  properly 
  constituted 
  to 
  ensure 
  voluntary 
  and 
  inclusive 
  participation, 
  
could 
  assist 
  in 
  attitudinal 
  and 
  behavioural 
  change 
  in 
  the 
  student 
  body, 
  staff, 
  and 
  faculty 
  
members 
  of 
  the 
  dental 
  school. 
  

14.

The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  collaborate 
  with 
  other 
  dental 
  schools, 
  professional 
  licensing 
  
boards, 
  and 
  professional 
  associations 
  across 
  Canada 
  to 
  address 
  equity 
  and 
  sexual 
  
misconduct 
  within 
  the 
  profession. 
  

15.

The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  consider 
  ways 
  to 
  reduce 
  its 
  isolation 
  from 
  the 
  University 
  as 
  a 
  
whole, 
  such 
  as 
  through 
  cross-­‐appointments 
  with 
  other 
  faculties 
  and 
  by 
  seeking 
  to 
  
incorporate 
  wider 
  perspectives 
  on 
  inter-­‐disciplinary 
  research 
  and 
  education. 
   
  

16.

The 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  improve 
  the 
  effectiveness 
  of 
  ethics 
  and 
  professionalism 
  
education 
  for 
  dental 
  students. 
  Steps 
  in 
  doing 
  so 
  should 
  include 
  making 
  the 
  courses 
  more 
  
central 
  to 
  the 
  curriculum, 
  integrating 
  learning 
  on 
  these 
  subjects 
  with 
  other 
  courses 
  and 
  
Clinic 
  activities, 
  and 
  including 
  issues 
  relating 
  to 
  sexism, 
  misogyny, 
  homophobia, 
  racism, 
  
disability, 
  and 
  discrimination. 
   
  

17.

Over 
  the 
  next 
  three 
  years, 
  the 
  Faculty 
  of 
  Dentistry 
  should 
  report 
  regularly 
  to 
  the 
  Senate 
  and 
  
President 
  on 
  its 
  progress 
  in 
  implementing 
  these 
  recommendations. 
  

18.

The 
  University 
  should 
  ensure 
  that 
  all 
  of 
  its 
  policies 
  are 
  in 
  written 
  format 
  and 
  widely 
  
accessible. 
   
  

Recommendations 
  related 
  to 
  the 
  University 
  administration 
  
19.

 
  

The 
  University 
  should 
  make 
  clear 
  how 
  codes 
  of 
  conduct 
  and 
  similar 
  policies 
  apply 
  to 
  social 
  
media 
  activity, 
  whether 
  by 
  revising 
  policies 
  or 
  otherwise. 
  

84 
    
  

 20.

The 
  University 
  should 
  increase 
  its 
  dissemination 
  of 
  information 
  about 
  how 
  to 
  raise 
  concerns 
  
and 
  lodge 
  complaints 
  about 
  sexual 
  harassment 
  and 
  sexual 
  misconduct. 
   
  

21.

The 
  University 
  should 
  publicize 
  more 
  information 
  about 
  the 
  institutions 
  and 
  processes 
  that 
  
can 
  address 
  issues 
  of 
  inequality, 
  including 
  harassment 
  and 
  misconduct. 
  

22.

The 
  HREHP 
  should 
  be 
  located 
  more 
  visibly 
  on 
  campus 
  with 
  more 
  adequate 
  facilities 
  and 
  
resources. 
  Consideration 
  should 
  be 
  given 
  to 
  renaming 
  the 
  office. 
  

23.

The 
  University 
  should 
  publicize 
  the 
  role 
  and 
  responsibilities 
  of 
  the 
  Office 
  of 
  Vice-­‐Provost, 
  
Student 
  Affairs 
  in 
  dealing 
  with 
  student 
  complaints. 
  Particular 
  attention 
  should 
  focus 
  on 
  
informing 
  students 
  how 
  they 
  can 
  raise 
  concerns 
  and 
  make 
  complaints. 
   
  

24.

The 
  University 
  should 
  consider 
  establishing 
  a 
  fully 
  funded 
  ombudsperson 
  office 
  comparable 
  
to 
  those 
  at 
  other 
  Canadian 
  universities. 
  

25.

The 
  University 
  should 
  develop 
  early 
  detection 
  mechanisms 
  to 
  identify 
  issues 
  of 
  
discrimination 
  or 
  harassment 
  that 
  may 
  be 
  systemic 
  in 
  nature, 
  and 
  issue 
  guidelines 
  that 
  will 
  
assist 
  those 
  with 
  the 
  power 
  to 
  initiate 
  complaints 
  on 
  behalf 
  of 
  the 
  University 
  to 
  identify 
  
when 
  and 
  how 
  to 
  do 
  so. 
   
  

26.

University 
  leaders 
  and 
  decision-­‐makers 
  should 
  draw 
  on 
  those 
  with 
  legal 
  and 
  social 
  science 
  
expertise 
  in 
  systemic 
  discrimination 
  when 
  responding 
  to 
  issues 
  that 
  may 
  have 
  systemic 
  
dimensions. 
   
  

27.

The 
  University 
  should 
  make 
  it 
  more 
  widely 
  known 
  that 
  complaints 
  of 
  sexual 
  harassment 
  and 
  
sexual 
  misconduct 
  can 
  be 
  addressed 
  in 
  ways 
  that 
  protect 
  the 
  complainant’s 
  identity. 
   
  

28.

The 
  University 
  should 
  strengthen 
  the 
  retaliation 
  protections 
  under 
  the 
  Sexual 
  Harassment 
  
Policy, 
  make 
  them 
  easier 
  to 
  invoke, 
  and 
  publicize 
  them 
  more 
  widely. 
  The 
  University 
  should 
  
extend 
  retaliation 
  protections 
  to 
  complaints 
  about 
  sexual 
  misconduct 
  made 
  under 
  the 
  Code 
  
of 
  Student 
  Conduct. 
   
  

29.

The 
  University 
  should 
  continue 
  to 
  include 
  RJ 
  specifically 
  among 
  the 
  mechanisms 
  it 
  may 
  
adopt 
  in 
  dealing 
  with 
  issues 
  of 
  inequality, 
  such 
  as 
  misogyny, 
  sexism, 
  and 
  homophobia, 
  but 
  
also 
  continue 
  to 
  assess 
  the 
  circumstances 
  in 
  which 
  it 
  is 
  appropriate. 
  The 
  University 
  should 
  
ensure 
  that 
  when 
  it 
  adopts 
  RJ, 
  affected 
  students 
  who 
  choose 
  not 
  to 
  participate 
  in 
  RJ 
  are 
  
provided 
  with 
  alternative 
  courses 
  of 
  redress. 
  

30.

The 
  University 
  should 
  maintain 
  and 
  develop 
  a 
  variety 
  of 
  educational 
  programs 
  on 
  issues 
  of 
  
inequality 
  and 
  widely 
  disseminate 
  them 
  across 
  the 
  University. 
  However, 
  such 
  programs 
  
should 
  not 
  be 
  seen 
  as 
  a 
  substitute 
  for 
  leadership 
  and 
  institutional 
  commitment 
  to 
  
confronting 
  inequality. 
  

 
  

85 
    
  

 Recommendations 
  related 
  to 
  the 
  wider 
  context 
  
31.

The 
  University 
  should 
  seek 
  to 
  enhance 
  its 
  reputation 
  for 
  responding 
  to 
  equity 
  issues 
  by 
  
ensuring 
  that 
  complaints 
  receive 
  fair 
  and 
  timely 
  responses 
  and 
  establishing, 
  over 
  time, 
  a 
  
visible 
  track 
  record 
  of 
  effective 
  intervention. 
  

32.

The 
  University 
  should 
  recognize 
  that 
  expertise 
  in 
  equity 
  issues 
  is 
  a 
  necessary 
  skill 
  for 
  faculty, 
  
central 
  administrators, 
  and 
  institutional 
  decision-­‐makers 
  at 
  all 
  levels, 
  up 
  to 
  and 
  including 
  the 
  
board 
  of 
  governors. 
  The 
  University 
  should 
  draw 
  on 
  the 
  existing 
  internal 
  expertise 
  of 
  
organizations 
  such 
  as 
  South 
  House, 
  Gender 
  and 
  Women’s 
  Studies 
  and 
  Black 
  Canadian 
  
Studies, 
  among 
  others, 
  in 
  designing 
  appropriate 
  training 
  and 
  supports. 
  Additional 
  resources 
  
should 
  be 
  provided 
  to 
  increase 
  the 
  capacity 
  of 
  all 
  of 
  these 
  organizations. 
  

33.

The 
  University 
  should 
  seek 
  ways 
  to 
  move 
  toward 
  greater 
  inclusion 
  of 
  female, 
  LGBTQ, 
  
racialized, 
  disabled, 
  and 
  diverse 
  ethnic 
  and 
  religious 
  communities 
  within 
  its 
  student, 
  faculty, 
  
and 
  administrative 
  populations. 
   
  

34.

The 
  University 
  should 
  expand 
  its 
  linkages 
  with 
  community 
  organizations 
  such 
  as 
  front-­‐line 
  
anti-­‐violence 
  services 
  and 
  others 
  with 
  expertise 
  in 
  equity. 
  

35.

The 
  University 
  should 
  ensure 
  that 
  faculty 
  members, 
  staff, 
  and 
  students 
  who 
  raise 
  concerns 
  
about 
  equity 
  are 
  not 
  at 
  risk 
  of 
  retaliation 
  for 
  doing 
  so. 
  

36.

The 
  University 
  should 
  continue 
  research 
  into 
  the 
  use 
  of 
  RJ, 
  exploring 
  whether 
  there 
  are 
  
ways 
  to 
  improve 
  its 
  process 
  and 
  content 
  in 
  disputes 
  within 
  areas 
  not 
  included 
  in 
  the 
  
province-­‐wide 
  moratorium. 
  

37.

The 
  University 
  should 
  build 
  on 
  its 
  strong 
  reputation 
  for 
  research 
  by 
  undertaking 
  studies, 
  
including 
  new 
  forms 
  of 
  interdisciplinary 
  analysis, 
  into 
  the 
  nature 
  of 
  rape 
  culture 
  and 
  ways 
  to 
  
reduce 
  or 
  eliminate 
  sexual 
  violence 
  in 
  society 
  generally. 
  The 
  University 
  should 
  draw 
  upon 
  
the 
  expertise 
  of 
  its 
  faculty 
  members, 
  staff, 
  and 
  students 
  to 
  develop 
  world-­‐class 
  research, 
  
teaching, 
  and 
  activism 
  to 
  dismantle 
  inequality. 
  

38.

The 
  University 
  should 
  expand 
  on 
  its 
  strong 
  reputation 
  for 
  pedagogy 
  by 
  exploring 
  new 
  
educational 
  and 
  communication 
  techniques 
  to 
  improve 
  teaching 
  in 
  the 
  field 
  of 
  anti-­‐
discrimination, 
  exploring 
  why 
  our 
  current 
  forms 
  of 
  training 
  appear 
  to 
  be 
  less 
  successful 
  than 
  
we 
  had 
  hoped, 
  and 
  experimenting 
  with 
  new 
  methods. 
  

39.

The 
  University 
  should 
  continue 
  with 
  its 
  process 
  toimplement 
  the 
  recommendations 
  in 
  the 
  
2015 
  Dalhousie 
  Report, 
  Belong: 
  Supporting 
  an 
  Inclusive 
  and 
  Diverse 
  University. 
  

 
  

 
  

86 
    
  

 Appendix 
  I. 
  Terms 
  of 
  Reference 
  and 
  Members 
  of 
  the 
  Task 
  Force 
  
Terms of Reference for Task Force on Misogyny, Sexism and Homophobia
In Dalhousie University Faculty of Dentistry
WHEREAS in December 2014, the President of Dalhousie University learned that 13
members of the fourth year class in the Faculty of Dentistry were members of a Facebook
group (the DDS 2015 Facebook Group) which contained disturbing and degrading
comments about their female classmates and other women;
AND WHEREAS the disclosure of the postings by the DDS 2015 Facebook Group raises
concerns about misogyny, sexism and homophobia within the Dalhousie University Faculty
of Dentistry;
AND WHEREAS such misogyny, sexism and homophobia is inimical to Dalhousie
University’s culture and values, including its commitment to a diverse, inclusive, nondiscriminatory and safe environment for all students, staff and Faculty members;
AND WHEREAS, as set out in its Statement on Prohibited Discrimination, Dalhousie
University commits itself to safeguard its students and employees against all forms of
prohibited discrimination in the course of work or study or participation in Universitysponsored organizations, activities and programs;
AND WHEREAS the President has determined that the culture within the Faculty of
Dentistry must be investigated and, if systemic misogyny, sexism, and homophobia is
found to exist, steps must be taken to eliminate it;
THE PRESIDENT HEREBY ESTABLISHES A TASK FORCE ON MISOGYNY,
SEXISM, AND HOMOPHOBIA IN DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY’S FACULTY OF
DENTISTRY, ON THE FOLLOWING TERMS:
1. The Task force will consist of a Chair and two other members.
2. The Chair will be appointed by the President of Dalhousie University. The Chair
will be an individual with expertise in equality and equity issues and be a

 
  

87 
    
  

 member in good standing of the law society of a Canadian province or territory.
The Chair will not have any affiliation with Dalhousie University.
3. The other two members of the Task Force will be chosen jointly by the Chair
and the President. They will have experience within the administration of a
Canadian university or college, experience in dealing with equality and equity
issues and no affiliation with Dalhousie University.
4. The President will also appoint a person within the Dalhousie University
administration to assist the Task Force in obtaining information about policies
and practices, and to act as a liaison between the Task Force and past and
present Faculty members and students.
5. The Task Force may also mandate an investigator to assist obtaining
information.
6. In the course of its investigation, the Task Force will:
1) Review all documents in the University’s possession which provide
any information in respect of the facts under investigation;
2) Interview any persons whom it believes have or ought to have
information relevant to the investigation, and who consents to be
interviewed;
3) Receive and review any submissions from present or former Faculty
of Dentistry students and Faculty; and
4) Review all University policies and practices relevant to the
investigation as well as relevant policies and practices in professional
faculties at other Canadian universities.
7. The Task Force will consider in particular the following questions, as well as
any other factual issues that it deems essential to carry out its mandate:
a) When was the DDS 20015 Facebook Group created? For what purpose?
b) Are there currently other similar groups currently within the Faculty of
Dentistry? Have there been such groups in the past?

 
  

88 
    
  

 c) What are the policies and practices of the Faculty and the University in
respect of:
•
•
•

Tolerance for misogynistic, sexist and homophobic conduct?
Sanctions for such conduct?
Communication by the Faculty and students of incidents
which could violate expected standards of conduct?

d) What training, if any, is given to students and Faculty in the Faculty of
Dentistry on the standard of conduct expected of them in general and
with respect to equality and equity issues in particular?
e) Do any of the current teaching or clinical practices within the Faculty
tolerate or promote misogynistic, sexist and homophobic views and
practices?
f) Do all students currently within the Faculty consider that they have the
same academic and clinical opportunities? If not, why not?
g) Do all students currently within the Faculty believe that they have the
ability to complain about misogynistic, sexist and homophobic practices
and policies and obtain meaningful remedies as a result of such
complaints?
h) What policies, standards and practices are in place at other Canadian
universities to address the issues of misogyny, sexism and homophobia?
i) What policies and practices could be put into place to permit University
administrators to investigate anonymous complaints of harassment and
discrimination and conduct investigations into allegations of systemic
discrimination and harassment?
8. In the course of is investigation, the Task force may propose changes to these
Terms of Reference to the President, which the President has the discretion to
accept or reject.
9. The Task Force will convene in Halifax, although meetings may also be held in
Ottawa.

 
  

89 
    
  

 10. Following its investigation, the Task Force will prepare two reports. The first
report will set out its factual findings and recommendations with respect to
policies and practices within the Faculty of Dentistry. The second report will set
out any additional recommendations with respect to policies and practices
within Dalhousie University.
11. The Task Force reports must be delivered to the President by no later than June
30, 2015.
12. The Task Force reports will be publicly disclosed, subject to redaction of
personal information about individuals mentioned in the reports and information
that could lead to the discovery of personal information.
Dated this Friday, January 9, 2015.

Richard Florizone, President.

ADDITIONAL TERMS ADDED AT SPECIAL SENATE MEETING, JANUARY 19,
2015.
As part of its investigation, the Task Force will:
Assemble a summary of the key facts surrounding the Facebook postings and the
university’s response;
Analyze and review this information to determine what we can learn from these
events; and
Draw upon this analysis as the Task Force recommends how Dalhousie might
improve responses in the future.
The President has provided the following commitment with respect to section 8 of the
Terms of Reference in relation to changes in the Terms of Reference:
Changes to the Terms of Reference would be initiated by the Chair of the Task
Force not by the President.

 
  

90 
    
  

 The President, as the representative of the University, commits to timely and
meaningful discussion and consultation of any such changes with Senate, through
the Senate Planning and Governance Committee.

MOTION: THAT Senate endorse the Task Force on Misogyny, Sexism and
Homophobia in Dalhousie University Faculty of Dentistry and the Terms of Reference
as presented, with the commitment by the President to consult with the Senate
Planning and Governance Committee on any changes proposed to the Terms of
Reference.
PASSED.

 
  

91 
    
  

 Members 
  of 
  the 
  Task 
  Force 
  
There 
  are 
  three 
  members 
  of 
  the 
  Task 
  Force. 
  Its 
  chair, 
  Constance 
  Backhouse, 
  holds 
  the 
  
positions 
  of 
  Distinguished 
  University 
  Professor 
  and 
  University 
  Research 
  Chair 
  at 
  the 
  
Faculty 
  of 
  Law 
  University 
  of 
  Ottawa 
  and 
  has 
  a 
  background 
  in 
  issues 
  of 
  gender 
  equality 
  and 
  
sexual 
  harassment. 
  Donald 
  McRae 
  holds 
  the 
  Hyman 
  Soloway 
  Chair 
  in 
  Business 
  and 
  Trade 
  
Law 
  at 
  the 
  University 
  of 
  Ottawa, 
  and 
  during 
  his 
  1987-­‐94 
  term 
  as 
  Dean 
  at 
  the 
  Faculty 
  of 
  
Law, 
  he 
  dealt 
  with 
  issues 
  relating 
  to 
  gender, 
  race, 
  ethnicity 
  and 
  homophobia. 
  Nitya 
  Iyer 
  is 
  
a 
  former 
  law 
  professor 
  and 
  a 
  Vancouver 
  lawyer 
  who 
  practices 
  administrative 
  and 
  
constitutional 
  law, 
  with 
  special 
  expertise 
  in 
  human 
  rights, 
  equality, 
  information 
  and 
  
privacy, 
  and 
  professional 
  regulation. 
  
 
  

 
  

92 
    
  

 Appendix 
  II. 
  Useful 
  Links/Related 
  Reports 
  
Tracey L. Adams A Dentist and a Gentleman: Gender and the Rise of Dentistry in Ontario
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000)
Constance Backhouse Colour-Coded: A Legal History of Racism in Canada, 1900-1950 (Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1999)
Constance Backhouse Carnal Crimes: Sexual Assault Law in Canada 1900-1975 (Toronto: Irwin
Law, 2008)
College of Dental Hygienists of Nova Scotia (CDHNS) “White Paper – Dental Hygienists Prevent
More to Treat Less” October 2014; www.cdhns.ca.
K.C. Chretien et al. “It’s your own risk: medical students’ perspective on online professionalism”
Acad. Med. 2010:85 (suppl. 10) at 568-571.
Gail Dines Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality (Boston: Beacon Press, 2010)
Nitya Iyer “Disappearing Women: Racial Minority Women in Human Rights Cases” in Caroline
Andrew and Sanda Rodgers eds. Women and the Canadian State, (Montreal and Kingston: McGillQueen’s University Press, 1997) 241-261.
Nitya Iyer and Shirley Nakata, Implementing Inclusion: A Consultation on Organizational Change
to Support UBC’s Commitments to Equity and Diversity,
http://equity.ubc.ca/files/2010/06/Implementing-Inclusion-Equity-Diversity-Consultation-ReportApril-2013.pdf
A Jain, E.M. Petty, S. Tackett, J. Purkis, J. Fitzgerald, C. White “What is appropriate to post on
social media? Ratings from students, faculty members and the public” Med Educ 2014; 48: 157169.
Robert Jensen Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity
Jon Krakauer Missoula: Rape and the Justice System in a College Town (New York: Random
House, 2015)
Lakehead University Report of Task Force on Sexual Assault Education, Prevention, and Support
(2014)
https://www.lakeheadu.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/249/Report%2C%20Sexual%20Assault%20Ta
sk%20Force.pdf
P. Neville & A. Waylen “Social Media and Dentistry: Some reflections on e-professionalism”
British Dental Journal 219 (9) 24 April 2015 at 475-78.
Saint Mary’s University Report from the President’s Council: Promoting a Culture of Safety,
Respect, and Consent at Saint Mary’s University and Beyond (15 December 2013)

 
  

93 
    
  

 A. Third, I. Richardson, P. Collin, K. Rahilly, N. Bolzan “Intergenerational attitudes towards social
networking and cybersafety: a living lab” 2011. http://www.youngandwellcrc.org.au/knowledgehub/publications/integenerational-attitudes-towards-social-networking-cybersafety/ (accessed
March 2015)
University of Ottawa Report of the Task Force on Respect and Equality: Ending Sexual Violence at
the University of Ottawa (2014)
http://www.uottawa.ca/president/sites/www.uottawa.ca.president/files/report-of-the-task-force-onrespect-and-equality.pdf
M. Von Muhlen & L. Ohno-Machado “Reviewing Social Media by Clinicians” 2012 (19) J. Am.
Med. 777-81
Report on the Restorative Justice Process at the Faculty of Dentistry,

www.dal.ca/cultureofrespect.html
University Policies/Ombudsman
Queen’s University
Queen’s University Student Code of Conduct,
http://www.queensu.ca/secretariat/policies/Senateandtrustees/Code_of_Conduct_final_2008.pdf
Harassment/Discrimination Complaint Policy and Procedure, approved March 30, 2000
http://www.queensu.ca/secretariat/policies/Senateandtrustees/harassment.html
Non-Academic Discipline at Queen’s, approved May 21, 2003
http://www.queensu.ca/secretariat/policies/Senateandtrustees/nonacademic.html
Queen’s University Senate Policy on Student Appeals, Rights & Discipline, February 26, 2004
http://www.queensu.ca/secretariat/policies/Senateandtrustees/SARDPolicy.pdf
Code of Conduct & Non-Academic Discipline (Overview)
http://www.queensu.ca/studentaffairs/student-safety/campus/code-conduct-non-academic-discipline
Ombudsperson
http://www.queensu.ca/ombudsman/faculty
University of Saskatchewan
Standard of Student Conduct in Non-Academic Matters and Regulations and Procedures for
Resolution of Complaints and Appeals, approved October 2008, further revisions October, 2012
http://www.usask.ca/secretariat/student-conduct-appeals/StudentNon-AcademicMisconduct.pdf
Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy, approved December 1, 1998, amended March
18, 2014
http://policies.usask.ca/policies/health-safety-and-environment/discrimination-and-harassmentprevention-.php
Student Discipline Policy, approved January 1, 2012
http://policies.usask.ca/policies/student-affairs-and-activities/student-discipline.php

 
  

94 
    
  

 Ombudsperson
http://ombuds-blog.blogspot.ca/2013/03/students-launch-petition-for-ombuds-at.html
https://www.ombudsman.sk.ca/
University of Western Ontario
Code of Student Conduct, November 25, 2010
http://www.uwo.ca/univsec/pdf/board/code.pdf
Manual of Administrative Policies and Procedures, 1.52 Policy on Sexual Violence, effective dated
September 23, 2014
http://www.uwo.ca/univsec/pdf/policies_procedures/section1/mapp152.pdf
Procedures for MAPP 1.52 - Responding to Sexual Violence
http://www.uwo.ca/univsec/pdf/policies_procedures/section1/mapp152_procedure.pdf
Manual of Administrative Policies and Procedures, Non-Discrimination/Harassment Policy,
effective dated December 1, 2011
http://www.uwo.ca/univsec/pdf/policies_procedures/section1/mapp135.pdf
MAPP 1.35 Non-Discrimination/Harassment Policy - Administrative Procedures
http://www.uwo.ca/univsec/pdf/policies_procedures/section1/mapp135_procedure.pdf
Policies and Procedures, 1.46 Safe Campus Community, effective May 1, 2008
http://www.uwo.ca/univsec/pdf/policies_procedures/section1/mapp146.pdf
Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry - Code of Conduct, approved November 7, 2014
https://www.schulich.uwo.ca/learner-equitywellness/equity_professionalism/Code%20of%20Conduct%20Schulich%20School%20of%20Medi
cine%2007-11-14%20Final%20II.pdf
Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Charter on Medical/Dental Professionalism
http://www.schulich.uwo.ca/learner-equitywellness/equity_professionalism/charter_medical_dental_professionalism.html
Shulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Procedure to Report on Incidents of Student Mistreatment
or Unprofessional Behaviour for DDS Students
http://www.schulich.uwo.ca/learner-equitywellness/equity_professionalism/reporting/ProceduretoReportIncidentsofStudentMistreatmentandU
nprofessionalBehaviourDDS.pdf
Ombudsperson 
   
  
http://uwo.ca/ombuds/

 
  

95 
    
  

 University of Manitoba
Faculty of Dentistry/School of Dental Hygiene, Professional Unsuitability By-Law
http://umanitoba.ca/faculties/health_sciences/dentistry/media/Dentistry_Professional_Unsuitability_
Bylaw.pdf
Governing Documents: University Community, Respectful Work and Learning Environment
Procedure, effective January 27, 2009, revised March 15, 2010
http://umanitoba.ca/admin/governance/governing_documents/community/566.html
Governing Documents: University Community, Violent or Threatening Behavior Policy, effective
March 22, 2006
http://umanitoba.ca/admin/governance/governing_documents/community/669.html
Governing Documents: Students, Student Discipline
http://umanitoba.ca/admin/governance/governing_documents/students/student_discipline.html
Governing Documents: Students, Inappropriate or Disruptive Student Behaviour Policy, effective
January 1, 2008
http://umanitoba.ca/admin/governance/governing_documents/students/279.html
University of Manitoba, Student Advocacy Office Policy, effective January 25, 2011, revised
October 15, 2013
http://umanitoba.ca/admin/governance/media/Student_Advocacy_Office_Policy_-_2013_10_15.pdf
University of Toronto
Code of Student Conduce, effective July 1, 2002
http://www.governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/Assets/Governing+Council+Digital+Assets/Policies/PDF/
ppjul012002.pdf
Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, effective August 18, 1995
http://www.governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/Assets/Governing+Council+Digital+Assets/Policies/PDF/
ppjun011995.pdf
Standards of Professional Practice Behaviour for all Health Professional Students, effective
September 2008
http://www.governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/Assets/Governing+Council+Digital+Assets/Policies/PDF/
ppsep012008i.pdf
Policy and Procedures: Sexual Harassment, November 25, 1997
http://www.governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/Assets/Governing+Council+Digital+Assets/Policies/PDF/
ppnov251997.pdf
Discipline Appeals Board, Terms of Reference, June 1, 1995
http://www.governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/Assets/Governing+Council+Digital+Assets/Policies/PDF/
ppjun011995ii.pdf

 
  

96 
    
  

 Statement on Equity, Diversity, and Excellence, December 14, 2006
http://www.governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/Assets/Governing+Council+Digital+Assets/Policies/PDF/
ppdec142006.pdf
Statement on Prohibited Discrimination and Discriminatory Harassment, March 31, 1994
http://www.governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/Assets/Governing+Council+Digital+Assets/Policies/PDF/
ppmar311994.pdf

 
  

97 
    
  

 Ombudsperson 
  
http://ombudsperson.utoronto.ca/
University of British Columbia
Discipline for Non-Academic Misconduct: Student Code of Conduct
http://www.calendar.ubc.ca/vancouver/index.cfm?tree=3,54,750,0
Discrimination and Harassment Policy, approved January 1995, revised September 2011
http://www.universitycounsel.ubc.ca/files/2013/08/policy3.pdf
UBC Statement on Respectful Environment for Students, Faculty and Staff, July 4, 2008
http://www.hr.ubc.ca/respectful-environment/files/UBC-Respectful-Environment-Statement.pdf
Ombudsperson 
  
http://ombudsoffice.ubc.ca/
http://ombuds.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2009/07/Ombuds-brochure-2013.pdf
http://ombudsoffice.ubc.ca/files/2009/05/Terms-of-Reference-20111.pdf
University of Ottawa
Policy 67 - Sexual Harassment
http://www.uottawa.ca/about/policy-67-sexual-harassment
Procedure 36-1 - Complaints of Harassment/Discrimination Initiated by Students, effective
February 21, 2012
http://www.uottawa.ca/about/procedure-36-1-complaints-harassmentdiscrimination-initiatedstudents
Policy 66 - Violence Prevention
http://www.uottawa.ca/about/policy-66-violence-prevention
Statement on Sexual Violence
http://www.uottawa.ca/respect/en/harassment-discrimination/statement-sexual-violence
Policy 67a - Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination
http://www.uottawa.ca/about/reglement-67a-prevention-du-harcelement-discrimination
Ombudsperson 
  
http://www.uottawa.ca/ombudsperson/
University of Alberta
Code of Student Behaviour, November 12, 2014

 
  

98 
    
  

 http://www.governance.ualberta.ca/en/CodesofConductandResidenceCommunityStandards/~/media
/Governance/Documents/Codes%20of%20Conduct%20and%20Residence%20Community%20Stan
dards/Code%20of%20Student%20Behaviour/COSB-Updated-November-12-2014.pdf
Discrimination, Harassment and Duty to Accommodate Policy
https://policiesonline.ualberta.ca/PoliciesProcedures/Policies/Discrimination-Harassment-and-Dutyto-Accommodate-Policy.pdf
Discrimination and Harassment - Allegations Against Staff Procedure
https://policiesonline.ualberta.ca/PoliciesProcedures/Procedures/Discriminationand%20Harassment%20-%20Allegations-Against-Staff-Procedure.pdf
Discrimination and Harassment - Allegations Against Students Procedure
https://policiesonline.ualberta.ca/PoliciesProcedures/Procedures/Discriminationand%20Harassment%20-%20Allegations-Against-Students-Procedure.pdf
Ethical Conduct and Safe Disclosure Policy
https://policiesonline.ualberta.ca/PoliciesProcedures/Policies/Ethical-Conduct-and-Safe-DisclosurePolicy.pdf
Ethical Conduct and Safe Disclosure Procedure
http://www.disclosure.ualberta.ca/Office%20_of_Safe_Disclosure_and_Human_Rights/~/media/dis
closure/Ethical-Conduct-and-Safe-Disclosure-Procedure.pdf
30.3.4 Inappropriate Behaviour Towards Individuals or Groups
http://www.governance.ualberta.ca/CodesofConductandResidenceCommunityStandards/CodeofStu
dentBehaviour/303OffencesUndertheCode/3034InappropriateBehaviourtow.aspx
Ombudsperson 
  
http://www.ombudservice.ualberta.ca/
Simon Fraser University
Human Rights Policy, April 26, 1988, revised November 27, 2014
http://www.sfu.ca/policies/gazette/general/gp18.html
McGill University
Policy on Harassment, Sexual Harassment and Discrimination Prohibited by Law, effective
February 27, 2014
https://secureweb.mcgill.ca/secretariat/files/secretariat/policy_on_harassment_sexual_harassment_a
nd_discrimination_prohibited_by_law_2014.pdf
York University
Draft Whistleblower Protection Policy, April 19, 2009
http://www.yorku.ca/whistle/files/SampleWhistleblowerPolicy.pdf

 
  

99 
    
  

 University of Victoria
Ombudsperson
http://uvicombudsperson.ca/

University of Waterloo
Ombudsperson
http://www.hr.uwaterloo.ca/.jd/00002424.html
 
  

 
  

100